Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25511989›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2014

Swedish general practitioners' attitudes towards treatment guidelines - a qualitative study.

Veronica Milos, Tommy Westerlund, Patrik Midlöv, Eva Lena Strandberg

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Veronica MilosDepartment of Clinical Sciences in Malmö, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden. veronica.milos@med.lu.se.
Tommy WesterlundMedical Products Agency, Department of Medicine Usage, Uppsala and Sahlgrenska Academy, Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Unit of Social Medicine, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. tommy.westerlund@mpa.se.
Patrik MidlövDepartment of Clinical Sciences in Malmö, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden. patrik.midlov@med.lu.se.
Eva Lena StrandbergDepartment of Clinical Sciences in Malmö, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden. eva-lena.strandberg@med.lu.se.
Lund University · SEMedical Products Agency · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDrug therapy in primary care is a challenge for general practitioners (GPs) and the prescribing decision is influenced by several factors. GPs obtain drug information in different ways, from evidence-based sources, their own or others' experiences, or interactions with opinion makers, patients or colleagues. The need for objective drug information sources instead of drug industry-provided information has led to the establishment of local drug and therapeutic committees. They annually produce and implement local treatment guidelines in order to promote rational drug use. This study describes Swedish GPs' attitudes towards locally developed evidence-based treatment guidelines.

methodsThree focus group interviews were performed with a total of 17 GPs working at both public and private primary health care centres in Skåne in southern Sweden. Transcripts were analysed by conventional content analysis. Codes, categories and themes were derived from data during the analysis.

resultsWe found two main themes: GP-related influencing factors and External influencing factors. The first theme emerged when we put together four main categories: Expectations and perceptions about existing local guidelines, Knowledge about evidence-based prescribing, Trust in development of guidelines, and Beliefs about adherence to guidelines. The second theme included the categories Patient-related aspects, Drug industry-related aspects, and Health economic aspects. The time-saving aspect, trust in evidence-based market-neutral guidelines and patient safety were described as key motivating factors for adherence. Patient safety was reported to be more important than adherence to guidelines or maintaining a good patient-doctor relationship. Cost containment was perceived both as a motivating factor and a barrier for adherence to guidelines. GPs expressed concerns about difficulties with adherence to guidelines when managing patients with drugs from other prescribers. GPs experienced a lack of time to self-inform and difficulties managing direct-to-consumer drug industry information.

conclusionsPatient safety, trust in development of evidence-based recommendations, the patient-doctor encounter and cost containment were found to be key factors in GPs' prescribing. Future studies should explore the need for transparency in forming and implementing guidelines, which might potentially increase adherence to evidence-based treatment guidelines in primary care.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelGeneral PractitionersPractice Guidelines as TopicAdultDrug TherapyEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchSweden

Identifiers

PMID25511989
PMCPMC4276045
OpenAlexW2007517978

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.