Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29385203›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Practice variation and practice guidelines: Attitudes of generalist and specialist physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants.

David A Cook, Laurie J Pencille, Denise M Dupras, Jane A Linderbaum, V Shane Pankratz, John M Wilkinson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Digital Tools for Decision Support in Social Rehabilitation.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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.

David A CookKnowledge Delivery Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-2383-4633
Laurie J PencilleKnowledge Delivery Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States of America.
Denise M DuprasDivision of Primary Care Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States of America.
Jane A LinderbaumKnowledge Delivery Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States of America.
V Shane PankratzDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States of America.
John M WilkinsonDepartment of Family Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo understand clinicians' beliefs about practice variation and how variation might be reduced.

methodsWe surveyed board-certified physicians (N = 178), nurse practitioners (N = 60), and physician assistants (N = 12) at an academic medical center and two community clinics, representing family medicine, general internal medicine, and cardiology, from February-April 2016. The Internet-based questionnaire ascertained clinicians' beliefs regarding practice variation, clinical practice guidelines, and costs.

resultsRespondents agreed that practice variation should be reduced (mean [SD] 4.5 [1.1]; 1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree), but agreed less strongly (4.1 [1.0]) that it can realistically be reduced. They moderately agreed that variation is justified by situational differences (3.9 [1.2]). They strongly agreed (5.2 [0.8]) that clinicians should help reduce healthcare costs, but agreed less strongly (4.4 [1.1]) that reducing practice variation would reduce costs. Nearly all respondents (234/249 [94%]) currently depend on practice guidelines. Clinicians rated differences in clinician style and experience as most influencing practice variation, and inaccessibility of guidelines as least influential. Time to apply standards, and patient decision aids, were rated most likely to help standardize practice. Nurse practitioners and physicians assistants (vs physicians) and less experienced (vs senior) clinicians rated more favorably several factors that might help to standardize practice. Differences by specialty and academic vs community practice were small.

conclusionsClinicians believe that practice variation should be reduced, but are less certain that this can be achieved. Accessibility of guidelines is not a significant barrier to practice standardization, whereas more time to apply standards is viewed as potentially helpful.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelPractice Guidelines as TopicHealth PersonnelHumansSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID29385203
PMCPMC5792011

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.