Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29889861›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Shared decision making between patient and GP about referrals from primary care: Does gatekeeping make a difference?

Alexandru M Rotar, Michael J Van Den Berg, Willemijn Schäfer, Dionne S Kringos, Niek S Klazinga

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 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. A Bibliometric Analysis and Visualization of Decision Support Systems for Healthcare Referral Strategies.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Expectations Shaped Elsewhere: Refugee Experiences of Healthcare in Aotearoa New Zealand.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Validation of the PAM-13 instrument in the Hungarian general population 40 years old and above.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2022
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Alexandru M RotarDepartment of Public Health, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1382-7093
Michael J Van Den BergDepartment of Public Health, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Willemijn SchäferNIVEL (Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Dionne S KringosDepartment of Public Health, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Niek S KlazingaDepartment of Public Health, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Primary care faces challenging times in many countries, mainly caused by an ageing population. The GPs' role to match patients' demand with medical need becomes increasingly complex with the growing multiple conditions population. Shared decision-making (SDM) is recognized as ideal to the treatment decision making process. Understanding GPs' perception on SDM about patient referrals and whether patients' preferences are considered, becomes increasingly important for improving health outcomes and patient satisfaction. This study aims to 1) understand whether countries vary in how GPs perceive SDM, in patients' referral, 2) describe to what extent SDM in GPs' referrals differ between gatekeeping and non-gatekeeping systems, and 3) identify what factors GPs consider when referring to specialists and describing how this differs between gatekeeping and non-gatekeeping systems. Data were collected between October 2011 and December 2013 in 32 countries through the QUALICOPC study (Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe). The first question was answered by assessing GPs' perception on who takes the referral decision. For the second question, a multilevel logistic model was applied. For the third question we analysed the GPs' responses on what patient logistics and need arguments they consider in the referral process. We found: 1) variation in GPs reported SDM- 90% to 35%, 2) a negative correlation between gatekeeper systems and SDM-however, some countries strongly deviate and 3) GPs in gatekeeper systems more often consider patient interests, whereas in non-gatekeeping countries the GP's value more own experience with specialists and benchmarking information. Our findings imply that GPs in gatekeeper systems seem to be less inclined to SDM than GPs in a non-gatekeeping system. The relation between gatekeeping/non-gatekeeping and SDM is not straightforward. A more contextualized approach is needed to understand the relation between gatekeeping as a system design feature and its relation with and/or impact on SDM.

Indexed as

Decision MakingGatekeepingReferral and ConsultationGeneral PractitionersHumansLogistic ModelsOdds RatioPatientsPrimary Health CareSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID29889861
PMCPMC5995363

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.