Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23987804›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2013

Physical activity on prescription (PAP) from the general practitioner's perspective - a qualitative study.

Gerthi Persson, Annika Brorsson, Eva Ekvall Hansson, Margareta Troein, Eva Lena Strandberg

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03586011 (Which Primary Care Patients Benefit From Physical Activity on Prescription? An Analysis of Factors Predicting Increased Physical Activity), which is not on this map. Cited by 53 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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.

NCT03586011 completednot on this map

Which Primary Care Patients Benefit From Physical Activity on Prescription? An Analysis of Factors Predicting Increased Physical Activity

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorVastra Gotaland RegionRan2010 to 2019Enrolled444ConditionsHealth Behavior, Physical Activity, Metabolic Syndrome X, Primary Health CareArmsPredicting factors for increased physical activity
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Physical Activity Promotion: A Systematic Review of The Perceptions of Healthcare Professionals.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Gerthi PerssonBlekinge Centre of Competence, SE-371 81, Karlskrona, Sweden. gerthi.persson@ltblekinge.se.
Annika Brorsson
Eva Ekvall Hansson
Margareta Troein
Eva Lena Strandberg

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPhysical activity on prescription (PAP) is a successful intervention for increasing physical activity among patients with a sedentary lifestyle. The method seems to be sparsely used by general practitioners (GPs) and there is limited information about GPs' attitudes to counselling using PAP as a tool. The aim of the study was to explore and understand the meaning of prescribing physical activity from the general practitioner's perspective.

methodsThree focus group interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 15 Swedish GPs in the south of Sweden. Participants were invited to talk about their experience of using PAP. The interviews were transcribed verbatim, analysed using qualitative content analysis.

resultsThe analysis resulted in four categories: The tradition makes it hard to change attitude, Shared responsibility is necessary, PAP has low status and is regarded with distrust and Lack of procedures and clear guidelines. Traditionally GPs talk with patients about the importance of an increased level of physical activity but they do not prescribe physical activity as a treatment. Physician's education focuses on the use of pharmaceuticals. The responsibility for patients' physical activity level is shared with other health professionals, the patient and society. The GPs express reservations about prescribing physical activity. A heavy workload is a source of frustration. PAP is regarded with distrust and considered to be a task of less value and status. Using a prescription to emphasize an increased level is considered to be redundant and the GPs think it should be administered by someone else in the health care system. Scepticism about the result of the method was also expressed.

conclusionsThere is uncertainty about using PAP as a treatment since physicians lack education in non-pharmaceutical methods. The GPs do not regard the written referral as a prioritized task and rather refer to other professionals in the health care system to prescribe PAP. GPs pointed out a need to create routines and arrangements for the method to gain credibility and become everyday practice among GPs.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelExercise TherapyGeneral PractitionersRisk Reduction BehaviorCounselingFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMalePractice Patterns, Physicians'Primary Health CareQualitative ResearchSweden

Identifiers

PMID23987804
PMCPMC3765882

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.