ArticleAtencion primaria2010
[Opinions of general practitioners, psychiatrists and psychologists on the clinical practice guidelines for depression].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo explore the views on clinical practice guidelines (CPG) of general practitioners (GP), psychiatrists, and psychologists.
designDescriptive-exploratory qualitative study based on semi-structured individual and group interviews.
settingPublic primary health care and mental health centres in Barcelona, Sabadell, Cornellà de Llobregat and Gavà. PARTICIPANTS AND CONTEXT: A total of 31 health professionals (10GPs, 11 psychiatrists, and 10 psychologists) interviewed at their work place or at the research unit between October 2007 and June 2008.
methodConvenience sample. Participants were heterogeneous as regards sex, age, experience and workplace. Interviews were recoded and transcribed. Content analysis. Triangulation between techniques and results comparisons with participants was carried out as quality control.
resultsThe main advantages of CPGs were that they helped in decision making and gave security. On the other hand, participants were sceptical about the objectivity of GPC and considered that recommendations could not be applied to their individual patients. Additionally, they perceived CPG as inflexible. At the time of the study, GPs did not know of any CPG for depression. Specialists knew several CPGs but they did not use them as they prioritise their own experience.
conclusionsThere are some erroneous ideas about what a CPG is. If we want to implement CPGs, it is important to carry out some previous work presenting what a CPG is, what it is not and when it could be useful.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.