Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27449959›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2016

Applying clinical guidelines in general practice: a qualitative study of potential complications.

Bjarne Austad, Irene Hetlevik, Bente Prytz Mjølstad, Anne-Sofie Helvik

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Policy Options for Reducing Defensive Medicine Behaviors: A Multi-Method Study.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2024
    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

4 authors.

Bjarne AustadSjøsiden Medical Centre, Trondheim, Norway. bjarne.austad@ntnu.no.ORCID 0000-0003-1638-6879
Irene HetlevikGeneral Practice Research Unit, Department of Public Health and General Practice, NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, PO Box 8905, MTFS, 7491, Trondheim, Norway.
Bente Prytz MjølstadGeneral Practice Research Unit, Department of Public Health and General Practice, NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, PO Box 8905, MTFS, 7491, Trondheim, Norway.
Anne-Sofie HelvikGeneral Practice Research Unit, Department of Public Health and General Practice, NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, PO Box 8905, MTFS, 7491, Trondheim, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical guidelines for single diseases often pose problems in general practice work with multimorbid patients. However, little research focuses on how general practice is affected by the demand to follow multiple guidelines. This study explored Norwegian general practitioners' (GPs') experiences with and reflections upon the consequences for general practice of applying multiple guidelines.

methodsQualitative focus group study carried out in Mid-Norway. The study involved a purposeful sample of 25 Norwegian GPs from four pre-existing groups. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using systematic text condensation, i.e. applying a phenomenological approach.

resultsThe GPs' responses clustered around two major topics: 1) Complications for the GPs of applying multiple guidelines; and, 2) Complications for their patients when GPs apply multiple guidelines. For the GPs, applying multiple guidelines created a highly problematic situation as they felt obliged to implement guidelines that were not suited to their patients: too often, the map and the terrain did not match. They also experienced greater insecurity regarding their own practice which, they admitted, resulted in an increased tendency to practice 'defensive medicine'. For their patients, the GPs experienced that applying multiple guidelines increased the risk of polypharmacy, excessive non-pharmacological recommendations, a tendency toward medicalization and, for some, a reduction in quality of life.

conclusionsThe GPs experienced negative consequences when obliged to apply a variety of single disease guidelines to multimorbid patients, including increased risk of polypharmacy and overtreatment. We believe patient-centered care and the GPs' courage to non-comply when necessary may aid in reducing these risks. Health care authorities and guideline developers need to be aware of the potential negative effects of applying a single disease focus in general practice, where multimorbidity is highly prevalent.

Indexed as

ComorbidityGuideline AdherencePractice Guidelines as TopicAdultConflict, PsychologicalDefensive MedicineFemaleFocus GroupsGeneral PracticeGeneral PractitionersHumansMaleMedicalizationMedical OveruseMiddle AgedNorwayClinical practice guidelinesFocus groupsGeneral practitionersGuideline adherenceMultimorbidityOvertreatmentPatient-centered carePolypharmacyQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID27449959
PMCPMC4957916

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.