Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30131057›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2018

Clinician experiences of healthy lifestyle promotion and perceptions of digital interventions as complementary tools for lifestyle behavior change in primary care.

Anne H Berman, Karoline Kolaas, Elisabeth Petersén, Preben Bendtsen, Erik Hedman, Catharina Linderoth, Ulrika Müssener, Kristina Sinadinovic, Fredrik Spak, Ida Gremyr and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

11 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Anne H BermanCenter for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet & Stockholm Healthcare Services, Stockholm County Council, Norra Stationsgatan 69, SE-11364, Stockholm, Sweden. anne.h.berman@ki.se.ORCID 0000-0002-7709-0230
Karoline KolaasCenter for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet & Stockholm Healthcare Services, Stockholm County Council, Norra Stationsgatan 69, SE-11364, Stockholm, Sweden.
Elisabeth PetersénCenter for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet & Stockholm Healthcare Services, Stockholm County Council, Norra Stationsgatan 69, SE-11364, Stockholm, Sweden.
Preben BendtsenDepartment of Medicine and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Erik HedmanCenter for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet & Stockholm Healthcare Services, Stockholm County Council, Norra Stationsgatan 69, SE-11364, Stockholm, Sweden.
Catharina LinderothDepartment of Medicine and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Ulrika MüssenerDepartment of Medicine and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Kristina SinadinovicCenter for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet & Stockholm Healthcare Services, Stockholm County Council, Norra Stationsgatan 69, SE-11364, Stockholm, Sweden.
Fredrik SpakChalmers Technological University, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Ida GremyrDepartment of Public Health and Community Medicine, Section for Epidemiology and Social Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Anna ThurangCenter for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet & Stockholm Healthcare Services, Stockholm County Council, Norra Stationsgatan 69, SE-11364, Stockholm, Sweden.
Linköping University · SEStockholm County Council · SEState Administration of Foreign Experts Affairs · CNChalmers University of Technology · SEStockholm University · SEUniversity of Gothenburg · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence-based practice for healthy lifestyle promotion in primary health care is supported internationally by national policies and guidelines but implementation in routine primary health care has been slow. Referral to digital interventions could lead to a larger proportion of patients accessing structured interventions for healthy lifestyle promotion, but such referral might have unknown implications for clinicians with patients accessing such interventions. This qualitative study aimed to explore the perceptions of clinicians in primary care on healthy lifestyle promotion with or without digital screening and intervention.

methodsFocus group interviews were conducted at 10 primary care clinics in Sweden with clinicians from different health professions. Transcribed interviews were analyzed using content analysis, with inspiration from a phenomenological-hermeneutic method involving naïve understanding, structural analysis and comprehensive understanding.

resultsTwo major themes captured clinicians' perceptions on healthy lifestyle promotion: 1) the need for structured professional practice and 2) deficient professional practice as a hinder for implementation. Sub-themes in theme 1 were striving towards professionalism, which for participants meant working in a standardized fashion, with replicable routines regardless of clinic, as well as being able to monitor statistics on individual patient and group levels; and embracing the future with critical optimism, meaning expecting to develop professionally but also being concerned about the consequences of integrating digital tools into primary care, particularly regarding the importance of personal interaction between patient and provider. For theme 2, sub-themes were being in an unmanageable situation, meaning not being able to do what is perceived as best for the patient due to lack of time and resources; and following one's perception, meaning working from a gut feeling, which for our participants also meant deviating from clinical routines.

conclusionsIn efforts to increase evidence-based practice and lighten the burden of clinicians in primary care, decision- and policy-makers planning the introduction of digital tools for healthy lifestyle promotion will need to explicitly define their role as complements to face-to-face encounters. Our overriding hope is that this study will contribute to maintaining meaningfulness in the patient-clinician encounter, when digital tools are added to facilitate patient behavior change of unhealthy lifestyle behaviors.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelHealthy LifestylePrimary Health CareAdultBehavior TherapyFemaleFocus GroupsHealth PromotionHumansMaleMiddle AgedNursesPhysicians, Primary CarePrimary Care NursingPsychologyQualitative ResearchClinician experiencesDigital interventionsE-healthHealthy lifestyle promotionPhenomenological hermeneuticsPrimary careQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID30131057
PMCPMC6103870
OpenAlexW2888122538

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.