Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28235088›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Fostering better policy adoption and inter-disciplinary communication in healthcare: A qualitative analysis of practicing physicians' common interests.

Eric J Keller, Megan Crowley-Matoka, Jeremy D Collins, Howard B Chrisman, Magdy P Milad, Robert L Vogelzang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Ethical Issuing Arising Around Biliary Interventions.Seminars in interventional radiology · 2021
    Review
  3. Review
  4. 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

6 authors.

Eric J KellerCenter for Bioethics and Medical Humanities, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4327-483X
Megan Crowley-MatokaCenter for Bioethics and Medical Humanities, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.
Jeremy D CollinsDepartment of Radiology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.
Howard B ChrismanDepartment of Radiology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.
Magdy P MiladDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology-Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.
Robert L VogelzangDepartment of Radiology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn response to limited physician adoption of various healthcare initiatives, we sought to propose and assess a novel approach to policy development where one first characterizes diverse physician groups' common interests, using a medical student and constructivist grounded theory.

methodsIn 6 months, a medical student completed 36 semi-structured interviews with interventional radiologists, gynecologists, and vascular surgeons that were systematically analyzed according to constructivist grounded theory to identifying common themes. Common drivers of clinical decision making and professional values across 3 distinct specialty groups were derived from physicians' descriptions of their clinical decision making, stories, and concerns.

resultsCommon drivers of clinical decision making included patient preference/benefit, experience, reimbursement, busyness/volume, and referral networks. Common values included honesty, trustworthiness, loyalty, humble service, compassion and perseverance, and practical wisdom. Although personal gains were perceived as important interests, such values were easily sacrificed for the good of patients or other non-financial interests. This balance was largely dependent on the incentives and security provided by physicians' environments.

conclusionsUsing a medical student interviewer and constructivist grounded theory is a feasible means of collecting rich qualitative data to guide policy development. Healthcare administrators and medical educators should consider incorporating this methodology early in policy development to anticipate how value differences between physician groups will influence their acceptance of policies and other broad healthcare initiatives.

Indexed as

Decision MakingHealth PolicyInterdisciplinary CommunicationPatient PreferenceAttitude of Health PersonnelDecision Support Systems, ClinicalDelivery of Health CareEducation, Medical, GraduateEmpathyFemaleGrounded TheoryHumansMalePhysiciansPilot ProjectsTrust

Identifiers

PMID28235088
PMCPMC5325554

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.