Patients who attend a private practice vs a university outpatient clinic: how do they differ?

Although interpersonal continuity is commonly assumed to be essential for care, some patients prefer to attend a university outpatient clinic where physicians change regularly and interpersonal continuity of care is not ensured. The aim of this exploratory study was to evaluate the differences between patients attending a university outpatient clinic and patients frequenting a private practice, explore their patterns of care-seeking and their understanding of continued care. We conducted a cross-sectional study of patients attending the university medical outpatient clinic (OC) in Lausanne, Switzerland and ten randomly selected private general practices (PP). Eligible patients were >30 years, Swiss nationals or long term residents, with one or more chronic conditions and attending the same practice for >3 years. They were asked to complete a questionnaire on sociodemographic data, use of medical resources and reasons for choosing and remaining at the same practice. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a randomly selected subset of 26 patients to further explore their preferences. 329 patient questionnaires were completed, 219 by PP and 110 by OC patients. OC patients tended to be of lower socioeconomic status than PP patients. The main reason for choosing a PP were personal recommendation, while a higher percentage of patients chose the OC because they could obtain a first appointment quickly. A higher percentage of PP patients accorded importance to physician communication skills and trust, whereas a higher percentage of OC patients favoured investigation facilities. Qualitative data suggested that although OC and PP patients reported different reasons for consulting, their expectations on the medical and relationship level were similar. Our study suggests that the two groups of patients belong to different social backgrounds, have different patterns of care-seeking and attach importance to different aspects of care continuity. However, patients' expectations and perceptions of the physician-patient relationship are similar.

Ideal Body Size as a Mediator for the Gender-Specific Association Between Socioeconomic Status and Body Mass Index: Evidence From an Upper-Middle-Income Country in the African Region.

While obesity continues to rise globally, the associations between body size, gender, and socioeconomic status (SES) seem to vary in different populations, and little is known on the contribution of perceived ideal body size in the social disparity of obesity in African countries. We examined the gender and socioeconomic patterns of body mass index (BMI) and perceived ideal body size in the Seychelles, a middle-income small island state in the African region. We also assessed the potential role of perceived ideal body size as a mediator for the gender-specific association between SES and BMI. A population-based survey of 1,240 adults aged 25 to 64 years conducted in December 2013. Participants' BMI was calculated based on measured weight and height; ideal body size was assessed using a nine-silhouette instrument. Three SES indicators were considered: income, education, and occupation. BMI and perceived ideal body size were both higher among men of higher versus lower SES (p< .001) but lower among women of higher versus lower SES (p< .001), irrespective of the SES indicator used. Multivariate analysis showed a strong and direct association between perceived ideal body size and BMI in both men and women (p< .001) and was consistent with a potential mediating role of perceived ideal body size in the gender-specific associations between SES and BMI. Our study emphasizes the importance of gender and socioeconomic differences in BMI and ideal body size and suggests that public health interventions that promote perception of healthy weight could help mitigate SES-related disparities in BMI.