HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: oem.2007.035808v1 65/6/392    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Google Scholar Articles by Verger, P Articles by Souville, M PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Verger, P Articles by Souville, M Topic Collections Editor's choice

Inequities in reporting asbestos-related lung cancer: influence of smoking stigma and physician’s specialty, workload and role perception

¹ Southeastern Health Regional Observatory (ORS PACA), Marseilles, France
² French Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM UMR379), Marseilles, France
³ Grand Conseil de la Mutualité-Mutuelles de Provence, Marseilles, France
⁴ Aix Marseille University, Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale, UPRES EA849, Aix-en-Provence, France

Correspondence to:
Pierre Verger, Observatoire Régional de la Santé PACA, INSERM UMR 379, 23 rue Stanislas Torrents, 13006 Marseille, France; verger{at}marseille.inserm.fr

Objectives: To study physician barriers to workers’ compensation claims for asbestos-related cancers, focusing on smokers’ stigma and physicians’ speciality and role perception.

Methods: Cross-sectional telephone study of 486 randomly-selected general practitioners (GPs) and pulmonologists in south-eastern France. Standardised questionnaires explored their behaviour, attitudes and practices in the field of occupational health and their responses to a case vignette of a lung cancer patient with long-term occupational asbestos exposure. Randomised subgroups of GPs and pulmonologists heard alternative versions varying only as regards the worker’s smoking status. We studied factors associated with the recommendation that the case vignette patient file a compensation claim with simple and multiple logistic regressions.

Results: The response rate was 64.4% among GPs and 62.5% among pulmonologists. Recommending the filing of an occupational disease claim was significantly associated in multiple logistic regressions with speciality (OR 4.46; 95% CI 2.38 to 8.37, for pulmonologists vs GPs), patient’s smoking status (OR 3.15; 95% CI 2.11 to 4.70, for non-smokers vs smokers), physician’s workload (OR 1.83; 95% CI 1.17 to 2.88, for 25 consultations per day vs >25) and role perception (OR 2.00; 95% CI 1.22 to 3.27, for those who considered completing occupational disease medical certificates to be part of their role vs those who did not).

Conclusions: The results of this French study appear applicable to various countries and contexts. To make physicians and especially GPs more aware of occupational health and smoking stigma, officials and educators must give these topics higher priority during initial training and continuing medical education. Tools and equipment that take time constraints into account should be developed and disseminated to help physicians manage occupational diseases.