Emerging health crises challenge and overwhelm federal political systems (Greer et al. 2020, Global Public Health 15: 1413–6). Within the context of COVID-19, states and governors took charge in the absence of a coordinated federal response. The result was uneven policy responses and variance in health-related and economic outcomes. While existing research has explored public evaluations of state COVID-19 policies, we explore primary care physicians’ trust in state government for handling the pandemic, as well as their evaluations of their state government’s treatment responsibility for the pandemic and their state’s policy response. We find that general preferences for the role of the federal/state government in addressing the pandemic are shaped by individual-level physician partisanship. Specific evaluations of state policy responsiveness are influenced by whether physicians’ partisan preferences matched their governor. We also find, however, that Republican physicians were critical of Republican governors and physicians were less partisan than the general public. At least within public health, there are limits to the influence of partisan identity on expert (physician) political evaluations.

Intimate partner violence against women (IPVAW) is a public health problem that affects women worldwide. Consequently, victims frequently go to healthcare centers, usually with a cover reason. To address this problem, national and autonomic protocols to respond to IPVAW in health systems have been developed in Spain. In this regard, the role of primary care physicians (PCPs) will be essential for addressing IPVAW, but they could encounter obstacles in doing so. The purpose of this study was to explore how IPVAW is addressed in healthcare centers in Spain. This study synthesized the information available in the protocols to address IPVAW among health care workers in Spain and analyzed it according to World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. Additionally, PCPs’ perspectives on these protocols and the nature of IPVAW attention from healthcare centers were explored through a focus group. The findings displayed that, although the protocols mostly conform to WHO guidelines, they are insufficient to address IPVAW. Generally, PCPs were unaware of the existence of the protocols and referred to the lack of training in IPVAW and protocol use as one of the main obstacles to intervening, along with a lack of time and feelings as well as cultural, educational, and political factors. The adoption of measures to ensure that PCPs apply these protocols correctly and to approach PCPs’ obstacles for addressing IPVAW in consultations will be crucial for the care of victims.

Background: It has been anecdotally suggested that health care professionals have stigmatic beliefs about persons with Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, the nature and prevalence of those beliefs have yet to be elucidated. The aim of the present study is to examine stigma towards a person with AD among primary care physicians.

Methods: A nationally representative sample of 501 family physicians (54.1% female, mean age = 49, mean years in the profession = 21) were interviewed using a computer-assisted telephone interview and a structured questionnaire based on an expanded version of attribution theory.

Results: The findings showed that physicians' discriminatory behavior was especially high in the dimension of avoidance and coercion, but low in the dimension of segregation. Two central emotions (anger-fear and pity) were found to affect participants' tendency to discriminate, as were attributions of dangerousness.

Conclusions: Addressing these factors may require targeted education of health professionals as well as the enforcement of anti-discrimination policies.

This qualitative study describes the impact of deploying general practitioners (GPs) as primary care physicians (PCPs) in three Accident and Emergency (A&E) departments in Greater Manchester as part of a Health Action Zone initiative to promote integration of systems of care more responsive to the needs of inner city population groups. The setting was three Accident and Emergency Units in Greater Manchester. Semi-structured interviews with the PCPs and key A & E staff (n = 32) before the PCPs were deployed, then at intervals throughout the project. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed. Transcripts were analysed using constant comparison to identify emerging themes. Key themes centred on the assumptions and negotiation surrounding the emerging roles of the PCPs (as seen by themselves and other staff), particularly the conflict between operational (day-to-day work with patients) and strategic (forward planning) roles. The PCP appeared to act as a catalyst for the view that patients were not presenting “inappropriately”, rather, the problems presented at A&E might be best dealt with in different parts of the healthcare system, or by different personnel, and it is the service currently available that is inappropriate. By deploying the GP in a new role as PCP, but with the traditional autonomy associated with being a GP, and allowing him/her to develop the role according to local need, the new service evolved to identify and meet the needs of patients more appropriately. The use of the expanded role of the GP may be more successful in achieving ‘joined-up’ services than deploying other professional groups, such as nurses, to fulfil a specific role.