ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2000
Questioning in general practice--a tool for change.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The emerging informationist specialty: a systematic review of the literature.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2008Pooled it
- Knowledge and Attitudes of Oman Medical Specialty Board Residents towards Evidence-Based Medicine.Oman medical journal · 2014Article
- The ECHO project: (50th) proposal for IQCPOP.MedGenMed : Medscape general medicine · 2004Article
- A comparative case study of two models of a clinical informaticist service.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2002Article
- A clinical informaticist to support primary care decision making.Quality in health care : QHC · 2001Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In general practice, as in all branches of medicine, doctors are encouraged to ensure their decisions reflect research findings, and are 'evidence-based'. This depends upon general practitioners (GPs) questioning their practice, finding 'evidence-based' answers, and changing their practice where necessary. Questioning behaviour is therefore fundamental to this process. Research into the questioning behaviour and information needs of GPs is difficult and it is unknown whether better access to information necessarily results in behavioural change or better health outcomes. This paper summarises research on doctors' questioning behaviour, factors influencing their likelihood of finding answers, and discusses some of the obstacles they face in implementing change. Finally, we introduce the concept of a 'clinical informaticist', whose role is to provide evidence-based answers to specific questions raised by GPs. This service may facilitate learning and increase uptake of research findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
11050794PMC1313806What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.