Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17487521›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2007

Secrets in primary care: a qualitative exploration and conceptual model.

Shmuel Reis, Aya Biderman, Revital Mitki, Jeffrey M Borkan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Shmuel ReisDepartment of Medical Education, The R & B Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, The Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, POB 9649, Bat-Galim, Haifa, Israel. reis@netvision.net.il
Aya Biderman
Revital Mitki
Jeffrey M Borkan

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveSecrets and issues of confidentiality are critical concerns in doctor-patient communication and fundamental aspects of every medical encounter. Nevertheless, the nature, content, prevalence, impact, and consequences of secrets in medicine have largely been unexplored. This study investigates the role of secrets in primary care. It describes the intuitive strategies used by primary care physicians to cope with secrets, provides a categorization system, and suggests a conceptual model.

designFocus groups of primary care physicians were the principal data collection method employed. Transcripts from 8 focus groups were analyzed using an "immersion-crystallization" framework involving cycles of concentrated textual review of data. Insights from this iterative process and from the literature were employed in the construction of contextual types, content categories, processes, and models.

participantsSixty-one family physicians and general practitioners in Israel with a wide variety of seniority, ethnic, religious, and immigration backgrounds.

settingLocations in the north, south, and center of Israel.

resultsAnalysis revealed insights about definitions, prevalence, process, and content of secrets in primary care. The main content findings centered on categories of secrets such as propensity to secrecy, toxicity of secrets, and the special nature of secrets in family medicine. The main process findings regarded the life cycle of secrets and doctors' coping strategies. Based on our findings and a review of the literature, a conceptual model of secrets in primary care is proposed.

conclusionsThe importance and impact of secrets are significant part of daily medical practice. Further research is needed to enhance physicians' effective and ethical handling of secrets and secrecy in practice.

Indexed as

Models, PsychologicalPrimary Health CareAdaptation, PsychologicalConfidentialityFocus GroupsHumansPhysicians, FamilyPhysician's Role

Identifiers

PMID17487521
PMCPMC2219788

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.