Comparative view between Realistic Medicine and Realistic Health in the Portuguese general practice/family medicine environment: an exploratory observational study

Authors

  • Alexandra Carvalho MD. Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Coimbra. Coimbra, Portugal.
  • Luiz Miguel Santiago MD, PhD. Clínica Universitária de Medicina Geral e Familiar, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Coimbra. Coimbra, Portugal | Centro de Estudos e Investigação em Saúde da Universidade de Coimbra (CEISUC). Coimbra, Portugal.
  • Inês Rosendo MD. Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Coimbra. Coimbra, Portugal.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32385/rpmgf.v42i1.14212

Keywords:

Realistic Medicine, Realistic Health, General practice, Family medicine

Abstract

Introduction: Realistic Medicine (RM) and Realistic Health (RH) are two concepts related to physicians' approaches to patient care.

Objectives: To assess the opinions of Portuguese general and family medicine (GP/FM) doctors regarding the criteria of RM and RH.

Methods: Following ethical and authorship approvals, a validated specific questionnaire, its responding invitation in mailing lists in 2023 and 2024, with context variables sex, age, being a medical resident of specific training in MGF (MIFE-GP) or a specialist doctor (E-GP), and type of health unit of work (USF or UCSP) were observed and made. Informed consent, a single anonymous response, on a 1 to 5 points Likert scale, 5 (strongly agree). Total scores ranged from [10 to 50] for RH and [6 to 30] for RM. Descriptive and inferential non-parametric analyses were performed.

Results: A n=130 convenience sample, 64.3% women, 74.6% working in the USF model, 28.5% under 34 years, and 46.9% between 35 and 54 years, and 15.4% being MIFE-GP, was studied. The RM score between MIFE-GP and E-GP, the latter scoring higher, was different, p=0.032. “Do you consider that Realistic Medicine is similar to Realistic Health?” was different for sex (p=0.037) and age group (p=0.039), with men and older respondents more likely to recognize the difference. A moderate positive correlation between RM and RH scores for E-GP, r=0.497, p<0.001, and a weak positive one for MIFE-GP, r=0.277, p=0.237, were found.

Discussion/Conclusion: This unprecedented and exploratory study revealed a lack of conceptual clarity among respondents regarding RM and RH, particularly among MIFE-GP, about the broader RH.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Bunker JP. The role of medical care in contributing to health improvements within societies. Int J Epidemiol. 2001;30(6):1260-3.

2. Cutler DM, McClellan M. Is technological change in medicine worth it? Health Aff (Millwood). 2001;20(5):11-29.

3. Macinko J, Starfield B, Shi L. The contribution of primary care systems to health outcomes within Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, 1970-1998. Health Serv Res. 2003;38(3):831-65.

4. Kaplan RM, Milstein A. Contributions of health care to longevity: a review of 4 estimation methods. Ann Fam Med. 2019;17(3):267-72.

5. Oeppen J, Vaupel JW. Demography: broken limits to life expectancy. Science. 2002;296(5570):1029-31.

6. Thiyagarajan JA, Mikton C, Harwood RH, Gichu M, Gaigbe-Togbe V, Jhamba T, et al. The UN decade of healthy ageing: strengthening measurement for monitoring health and wellbeing of older people. Age Ageing. 2022;51(7):afac147.

7. Fenning SJ, Smith G, Calderwood C. Realistic medicine: changing culture and practice in the delivery of health and social care. Patient Educ Couns. 2019;102(10):1751-5.

8. Smith R. From realistic medicine to realistic health. BMJ. 2023;381:989.

9. Sema FD, Asres ED, Wubeshet BD. Evaluation of rational use of medicine using WHO/INRUD core drug use indicators at Teda and Azezo Health Centers, Gondar Town, Northwest Ethiopia. Integr Pharm Res Pract. 2021;10:51-63.

10. World Health Organization. One Health [homepage]. Geneva: WHO; 2017 Sep 21 [cited 2023 Oct 10]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/one-health

11. Campos LS, Rosa P, Martins PC, Xavier B, Leuschner P, Marques MI, et al. Recomendações para a redução do impacto ambiental dos inaladores em Portugal: documento de consenso [Recommendations for reducing the environmental impact of inhalers in Portugal: consensus document]. Acta Med Port. 2024;37(9):654-61. Erratum in: Acta Med Port. 2024;37(11):817-8. Portuguese

Downloads

Published

2026-03-04

Issue

Vol. 42 No. 1 (2026): Revista Portuguesa de Medicina Geral e Familiar

Section

Brief Article

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Portuguese Journal of Family Medicine and General Practice

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

The authors will assign to the RPMGF the sole right to publish and distribute the content of the manuscript specified in this declaration via physical, electronic, broadcasting or any other medium that may come into existence. They also grant the RPMGF the right to use and exploit this manuscript, in particular by assigning, selling or licensing its content. This permission is permanent and takes effect from the moment the manuscript is submitted, has the maximum duration allowed by applicable Portuguese or international law and is of worldwide scope. The authors further declare that this assignment is made free of charge. If the RPMGF informs the authors that it is not going to publish their manuscript, the exclusive assignment of rights ceases forthwith.

The authors authorise the RPMGF (or any entity it may appoint) to act on their behalf when it believes that copyright may have been infringed.

 

How to Cite

Comparative view between Realistic Medicine and Realistic Health in the Portuguese general practice/family medicine environment: an exploratory observational study. (2026). Portuguese Journal of Family Medicine and General Practice, 42(1), 73-77. https://doi.org/10.32385/rpmgf.v42i1.14212

Most read articles by the same author(s)