Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27430983›Full record

Observational studyBMC family practice2016

Typologies in GPs' referral practice.

Olav Thorsen, Miriam Hartveit, Jan Olav Johannessen, Lars Fosse, Geir Egil Eide, Jörn Schulz, Anders Bærheim

Erratum issuedAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC family practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
–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

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

  1. A Bibliometric Analysis and Visualization of Decision Support Systems for Healthcare Referral Strategies.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Olav ThorsenDepartment of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Box 7800, Bergen, N-5020, Norway. olav.thorsen@uib.no.ORCID 0000-0002-8720-7025
Miriam HartveitDepartment of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Box 7800, Bergen, N-5020, Norway.
Jan Olav JohannessenCentre for Clinical Psychosis Research, Division of Psychiatry, Stavanger University Hospital, Box 8100, Stavanger, N-4068, Norway.
Lars FosseDepartment of Orthopaedics, Stavanger University Hospital, Box 8100, Stavanger, N-4068, Norway.
Geir Egil EideDepartment of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Box 7800, Bergen, N-5020, Norway.
Jörn SchulzDepartment of Research, Stavanger University Hospital, Box 8100, Stavanger, N-4068, Norway.
Anders BærheimDepartment of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Box 7800, Bergen, N-5020, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGPs' individual decisions to refer and the various ways of working when they refer are important determinants of secondary care use. The objective of this study was to explore and describe potential characteristics of GPs' referral practice by investigating their opinions about referring and their self-reported experiences of what they do when they refer.

methodsObservational cross-sectional study using data from 128 Norwegian GPs who filled in a questionnaire with statements on how they regarded the referral process, and who were invited to collect data when they actually referred to hospital during one month. Only elective referrals were recorded. The 57 participants (44,5 %) recorded data from 691 referrals. The variables were included in a principal component analysis. A multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to identify typologies with GP's age, gender, specialty in family medicine and location as independent variables.

resultsEight principal components describe the different ways GPs think and work when they refer. Two typologies summarize these components: confidence characterizing specialists in family medicine, mainly female, who reported a more patient-centred practice making priority decisions when they refer, who confer easily with hospital consultants and who complete the referrals during the consultation; uncertainty characterizing young, mainly male non-specialists in family medicine, experiencing patients' pressure to be referred, heavy workload, having reluctance to cooperate with the patient and reporting sparse contact with hospital colleagues.

conclusionsTraining specialists in family medicine in patient-centred method, easy conference with hospital consultant and cooperation with patients while making the referral may foster both self-reflections on own competences and increased levels of confidence.

Indexed as

Family PracticeSelf EfficacyUncertaintyAdultAge FactorsAttitude of Health PersonnelContinuity of Patient CareCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGeneral PractitionersHumansInterdisciplinary CommunicationMaleMiddle AgedPatient-Centered CarePrincipal Component AnalysisConfidenceReferral processTypologiesUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID27430983
PMCPMC4949760

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.