ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2017
What happens when the doctor denies a patient's request? A qualitative interview study among general practitioners in Norway.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
34 citing papers in PubMed, 65 citations in OpenAlex.
- Independent medical evaluation for sick-listed patients: a focus group study of GPs´ expectations and experiences.BMC health services research · 2018Trial
- Sick-listed workers' expectations about and experiences with independent medical evaluation: a qualitative interview study from Norway.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2018Trial
- Challenging Encounters: A Systematic Scoping Review to Understand Patients' Influence on GPs' Compliance With Imaging Guidelines.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Article
- Article
- Patient Agency in Imaging: Radiologists' Insights.Public health challenges · 2025Article
- Perceptions of the usefulness of Choosing Wisely among general practitioners in Norway: a nationwide survey.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Legitimizing incapacity: discursive choices in Norwegian sickness certificates.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- General practitioners' attitudes and practices regarding sick leave certification for patients with depression in Norway - a cross-sectional study.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Stretching oneself too thin and facing ethical challenges: Healthcare professionals' experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic.Nursing ethics · 2024Article
- Gatekeeping and referral of patients holding private health insurance: a survey among general practitioners in Norway.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2024Article
- Understanding access to general practice through the lens of candidacy: a critical review of the literature.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024Review
- Article
- Time is money: general practitioners' reflections on the fee-for-service system.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- The cost of saying no: general practitioners' gatekeeping role in sickness absence certification.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Article
- How health care professionals handle limited resources in primary care - an interview study.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Primary care physician responses to requests by older adults for unnecessary drugs: a qualitative study.BMC primary care · 2022Article
- The voice of the self: a typology of general practitioners' emotional responses to situational and contextual stressors.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2022Article
- How can we best help this patient? Exploring mental health therapists' reflections on medication-free care for patients with psychosis in Norway.International journal of mental health systems · 2022Article
- GP strategies to avoid imaging overuse. A qualitative study in Norwegian general practice.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore general practitioners (GPs') experiences from consultations when a patient's request is denied, and outcomes of such incidents. DESIGN AND
participantsWe conducted a qualitative study with semi-structured individual interviews with six GPs in Norway. We asked them to tell about experiences from specific encounters where they had refused a patient's request. The texts were analysed with Systematic Text Condensation, a method for thematic cross-case analysis.
main outcome measuresAccounts of experiences from consultations when GPs refused their patients' requests.
resultsSubjects of dispute included clinical topics like investigation and treatment, certification regarding welfare benefits and medico-legal issues, and administrative matters. The arguments took different paths, sometimes settled by reaching common ground but more often as unresolved disagreement with anger or irritation from the patient, sometimes with open hostility and violence. The aftermath and outcomes of these disputes lead to strong emotional impact where the doctors reflected upon the incidents and sometimes regretted their handling of the consultation. Some long-standing and close patient-doctor relationships were injured or came to an end.
conclusionsThe price for denying a patient's request may be high, and GPs find themselves uncomfortable in such encounters. Skills pertaining to this particular challenge could be improved though education and training, drawing attention to negotiation of potential conflicts. Also, the notion that doctors have a professional commitment to his or her own autonomy and to society should be restored, through increased emphasis on core professional ethics in medical education at all levels.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.