ArticleBMJ open2018
Gut Feelings Questionnaire in daily practice: a feasibility study using a mixed-methods approach in three European countries.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine learning for risk stratification in the emergency department (MARS-ED): a randomized controlled trial.Nature communications · 2025Trial
- Diagnostic Reasoning in Surgical Pathology.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
- Machine learning for risk stratification in the emergency department (MARS-ED) study protocol for a randomized controlled pilot trial on the implementation of a prediction model based on machine learning technology predicting 31-day mortality in the emergency department.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2024Article
- The linguistic validation of the gut feelings questionnaire in Turkish.The European journal of general practice · 2023Article
- How patients in general practice voice and value their gut feelings about health: a qualitative interview study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023Article
- Observational
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe validated Gut Feelings Questionnaire (GFQ) is a 10-item questionnaire based on the definitions of the sense of alarm and the sense of reassurance. The purpose of the GFQ is to determine the presence or absence of gut feelings in the diagnostic reasoning of general practitioners (GPs).The aim was to test the GFQ on GPs, in real practice settings, to check whether any changes were needed to improve feasibility, and to calculate the prevalence of the GPs' sense of alarm and sense of reassurance in three different countries.
settingPrimary care, six participating centres in Belgium, France and the Netherlands.
participantsWe performed a think-aloud study with 24 experienced Dutch GPs, GP trainees and medical clerks who filled in the GFQ after diagnosing each of six case vignettes. We then performed a feasibility study in two phases, using a mixed-method approach, with 42 French and Dutch GPs in the first phase and then 10 Belgian, 10 Dutch and 10 French GPs in the second phase. All GPs filled in the GFQ after each of eight consultations with patients presenting new complaints and were subsequently interviewed about the use of the GFQ. OUTCOME MEASURES: GPs' experiences on using the GFQ in real practice, more specifically the average time needed for filling in the questionnaire.The prevalence of GPs' sense of alarm and sense of reassurance.
resultsThe modified version of the GFQ, created without altering the sense of the validated items, was easy to use in daily practice. The prevalence of the GPs' sense of alarm occurred during 23%-31% of the included consultations.
conclusionsAfter a two-step study and several minor adaptations, the final version of the GFQ proved to be a feasible and practical tool to be used for prospective observational studies in daily practice.
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.