Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29273671›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

How is defensive medicine understood and experienced in a primary care setting? A qualitative focus group study among Danish general practitioners.

Elisabeth Assing Hvidt, Jesper Lykkegaard, Line Bjørnskov Pedersen, Kjeld Møller Pedersen, Anders Munck, Merethe Kousgaard Andersen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Collateral Victims of Defensive Medical Practice.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  15. Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Elisabeth Assing HvidtDepartment of Public Health, Research Unit of General Practice, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-3762-8478
Jesper LykkegaardDepartment of Public Health, Research Unit of General Practice, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Line Bjørnskov PedersenDepartment of Public Health, Research Unit of General Practice, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Kjeld Møller PedersenDepartment of of Business and Economics, COHERE, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Anders MunckDepartment of Public Health, Research Unit of General Practice, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Merethe Kousgaard AndersenDepartment of Public Health, Research Unit of General Practice, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesRecent years have witnessed a progressive increase in defensive medicine (DM) in several Western welfare countries. In Danish primary and secondary care, documentation on the extent of DM is lacking. Before investigating the extent of DM, we wanted to explore how the phenomenon is understood and experienced in the context of general practice in Denmark. The objective of the study was to describe the phenomenon of DM as understood and experienced by Danish general practitioners (GPs).

designA qualitative methodology was employed and data were generated through six focus group interviews with three to eight GPs per group (n=28) recruited from the Region of Southern Denmark. Data were analysed using a thematic content analysis inspired by a hermeneutic-phenomenological focus on understanding and meaning.

resultsDM is understood as unnecessary and meaningless medical actions, carried out mainly because of external demands that run counter to the GP's professionalism. Several sources of pressure to act defensively were identified by the GPs: the system's pressure to meet external regulations, demands from consumerist patients and a culture among GPs and peers of infallibility and zero-risk tolerance.

conclusionsGPs understand DM as unnecessary and meaningless actions driven by external demands instead of a focus on the patient's problem. GPs consider defensive actions to be carried out as a result of succumbing to various sources of pressure deriving from the system, the patients, the GPs themselves and peers.

Indexed as

Defensive MedicineGeneral PractitionersHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultAgedDenmarkFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhysician-Patient RelationsQualitative Researchdefensive medicinegeneral practiceprimary health carequalitative research

Identifiers

PMID29273671
PMCPMC5778280

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.