Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27599491›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2017

Perceived Barriers to Implementing Individual Choosing Wisely

Brian J Zikmund-Fisher, Jeffrey T Kullgren, Angela Fagerlin, Mandi L Klamerus, Steven J Bernstein, Eve A Kerr

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
25.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 140 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Why we all need Choosing Wisely?Internal and emergency medicine · 2023
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Choosing Wisely: An idea worth sustaining.Health services research · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Brian J Zikmund-FisherDepartment of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2029, USA. bzikmund@umich.edu.
Jeffrey T KullgrenDivision of General Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Angela FagerlinDivision of General Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Mandi L KlamerusVA Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Steven J BernsteinDivision of General Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Eve A KerrDivision of General Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USVA Center for Clinical Management Research · USUniversity of Utah · USVA Ann Arbor Healthcare System · US

Funding

Research BaseP30DK092926 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI MARY ELLEN MICHELE HEISLER, ADESUWA B OLOMU · 2011 to 2026
$10.0M
NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK092926
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile some research has examined general attitudes about efforts to reduce overutilization of services, such as the Choosing Wisely

objectiveWe sought to identify whether particular CW recommendations were perceived by primary care providers as difficult to follow, difficult for patients to accept, or both.

designTwo national surveys, one by mail to a random sample of 2000 U.S. primary care physicians in November 2013, and the second electronically to a random sample of 2500 VA primary care providers (PCPs) in October-December 2014.

participantsA total of 603 U.S. primary care physicians and 1173 VA primary care providers. Response rates were 34 and 48 %, respectively. MAIN MEASURES: PCP ratings of whether 12 CW recommendations for screening, testing and treatments applicable to adult primary care were difficult to follow and difficult for patients to accept; and ratings of potential barriers to reducing overutilization. KEY

resultsFor four recommendations regarding not screening or testing in asymptomatic patients, less than 20 % of PCPs found the CW recommendations difficult to accept (range 7.2-16.6 %) or difficult for patients to follow (12.2-19.3 %). For five recommendations regarding testing or treatment for symptomatic conditions, however, there was both variation in reported difficulty to follow (9.8-32 %) and a high level of reported difficulty for patients to accept (35.7-87.1 %). The most frequently reported barriers to reducing overuse included malpractice concern, patient requests for services, lack of time for shared decision making, and the number of tests recommended by specialists.

conclusionsWhile PCPs found many CW recommendations easy to follow, they felt that some, especially those for symptomatic conditions, would be difficult for patients to accept. Overcoming PCPs' perceptions of patient acceptability will require approaches beyond routine physician education, feedback and financial incentives.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelUnnecessary ProceduresDelivery of Health CareFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMaleMass ScreeningMedical OverusePhysicians, Primary CarePrimary Health CareSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID27599491
PMCPMC5264674
OpenAlexW2518284086

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.