ReviewJournal of general internal medicine2011
When should patient intuition be taken seriously?
Review in Journal of general internal medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evidence-Based Medicine: Past, Present, Future.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- How patients in general practice voice and value their gut feelings about health: a qualitative interview study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023Article
- Patients' gut feelings seem useful in primary care professionals' decision making.BMC primary care · 2022Article
- Developing an aftercare decision aid; assessing health professionals' and patients' preferences.European journal of cancer care · 2018Article
- Empathy, burn-out and the use of gut feeling: a cross-sectional survey of Danish general practitioners.BMJ open · 2018Article
- Use of intuition by critical care nurses: a phenomenological study.Advances in medical education and practice · 2016Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As a style of information processing, intuition involves implicit perceptual and cognitive processes that can be quickly and automatically executed without conscious mental will, such that people know more than they can describe. Patient intuition can influence patient and clinician decision-making and behavior. However, physicians may not always see patient intuition as credible or important, and its management in the clinical setting is poorly understood. This paper takes a step toward suggesting conditions under which patient intuition should be taken seriously. These conditions relate to the credibility or accuracy of the intuitive beliefs held by the patient, and their significance to the patient. Credibility may be increased when the intuitions of patients (1) reflect their individualized knowledge, (2) can complement the common absence of scientific evidence in managing health problems, and (3) can quickly and effectively process key information in complex cognitive tasks. Even intuitions that lack credibility can be subjectively rational and meaningful to patients, and help to shape the decisions they and clinicians make.
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.