Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22019060›Full record

ArticleAtencion primaria2012

[Opinions of family doctors on the involvement of patients in the taking of decisions: a study with focus groups].

Laura Jiménez-De Gracia, Roger Ruiz-Moral, Enrique Gavilán-Moral, Cesar Hueso-Montoro, Dolores Cano-Caballero Gálvez, M Antonia Alba-Dios

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
In one paragraph

Article in Atencion primaria, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Laura Jiménez-De GraciaMedicina de Familia y Comunitaria, Centro Sociosanitario San Francisco, Servicio Extremeño de Promoción de la Autonomía y Atención a la Dependencia.
Roger Ruiz-Moral
Enrique Gavilán-Moral
Cesar Hueso-Montoro
Dolores Cano-Caballero Gálvez
M Antonia Alba-Dios

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine what family doctors think about various aspects of patient involvement in clinical decision making in Primary Care.

designQualitative study using focus groups. LOCATION: Primary Care.

participantsFamily physicians with and without expertise in clinical communication.

methodsThree focus groups were developed, involving 6-8 professionals per group, and took part in two meetings. The conversations were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The discussion was analysed using literature-based categories and other emerging from the text, encoding the information and making an inductive interpretation.

resultsFamily physicians refer mainly to involving the patient in decisions by proposing a plan tailored to the knowledge of patient problems and then verifying their approval or rejection. However, some professionals ponder whether this could be classified as patient involvement, questioning the real role that both players would take at the time of deciding.

conclusionsThe explanation of how family physicians would involve the patient in decisions clashes with the most widespread theories on the subject and, also opposes the view of patients who would like to be involved more actively. Taking into account discordant reflections on the relevance of considering this process as real patient involvement, it is necessary to describe a realistic theoretical model that allows further development of strategies to improve the attitude and training of professionals to patient involvement in clinical decisions.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelDecision MakingFamily PracticeFocus GroupsPatient ParticipationPhysicians, FamilyPrimary Health CareHumansSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID22019060
PMCPMC7025227

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.