Skip to main content

Table 2 Factors associated with general practitioners’ practices during the lockdown (n = 1191)

From: United, can we be stronger? Did French general practitioners in multi-professional groups provide more chronic care follow-up during lockdown?

Marginal effects

Number of visits related to complications of chronic diseases dropped during the week before the survey compared to a “typical” week before the pandemic

Pro-active in contacting chronic patients

Probit

Bivariate probit

Probit

Bivariate probit

Multiprofessional group practice (MGP)

−0.0199

−0.4527***

0.1344**

0.3636***

(0.0564)

(0.0975)

(0.0579)

(0.1293)

The most affecteddépartements

0.0418

0.0743

−0.0817

−0.0662

(0.0731)

(0.0534)

(0.0919)

(0.0952)

Perceived severity [0;10]

−0.0023

− 0.0076

0.0146

0.0176

(0.0118)

(0.0098)

(0.0138)

(0.0137)

Estimated share of population contaminated by the end of 2020 (ref. < 50%)

 50–75%

−0.0977

−0.0527

0.1887***

0.1500**

(0.0631)

(0.0507)

(0.0618)

(0.0636)

 75% or more

−0.0466

−0.0223

0.1532**

0.1268*

(0.0723)

(0.0593)

(0.0751)

(0.0759)

Female

0.0083

−0.0186

0.0810

0.0948

(0.0556)

(0.0482)

(0.0618)

(0.0634)

Age (ref. < 50 years old)

 50–59 years old

−0.0874

− 0.0951*

0.0489

0.0409

(0.0605)

(0.0547)

(0.0648)

(0.0646)

 60 years old or more

0.0590

0.0432

−0.0131

−0.0144

(0.0659)

(0.0606)

(0.0811)

(0.0873)

Workload (ref. Q1)

 Q2-Q3

−0.0941

−0.0645

− 0.1294*

−0.1516**

(0.0642)

(0.0534)

(0.0695)

(0.0720)

 Q4

−0.0167

−0.0127

− 0.1248

−0.1114

(0.0843)

(0.0719)

(0.0896)

(0.0907)

Lowest GP density (1st decile)

0.0763

0.0635

−0.1396**

−0.1464**

(0.0501)

(0.0425)

(0.0663)

(0.0656)

ρ (coefficient)

–

0.8701***

–

−0.5758

(0.2532)

0.4544

Observations

680

641

704

665

  1. Source: DREES, ORS and URPS Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur and Pays de la Loire, 4ème Panel d’observation des pratiques et des conditions d’exercice en médecine générale de ville
  2. Notes: Weighted data
  3. Standard errors in brackets
  4. Marginal effects calculated for: non-MGP, GPs not in most affected départements, male GPs, youngest GPs, with lowest workload, those not practicing in lowest GP density areas
  5. Reading note: For GPs practicing in MGP, the probability of experiencing a drop in visits related to complications of chronic diseases is 1.99% lower (probit)/ 45.25% lower (bivariate probit) compared to those practicing outside MGP
  6. The estimated value of the “rho” (ρ) coefficient represents the correlation coefficient between the residuals of each of the two equations. A “rho” coefficient statistically significantly different from zero advocates for the use of the bivariate probit model (simultaneous estimation of the two equations)
  7. GPs general practitioners, MGP multi-professional group practices
  8. *p < 0.1
  9. **p < 0.05
  10. ***p < 0.01 (probit and bivariate probit regressions)
Back to article page

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

Contact us