Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31289073›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Patient-physician relationship and use of gut feeling in cancer diagnosis in primary care: a cross-sectional survey of patients and their general practitioners.

Anette Fischer Pedersen, Christina Maar Andersen, Mads Lind Ingeman, Peter Vedsted

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Understanding the role of GPs' gut feelings in diagnosing cancer in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing evidence.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Physicians' appraisal of parental concerns: a qualitative assessment.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

4 authors.

Anette Fischer PedersenResearch Unit for General Practice, Aarhus Universitet, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-0253-3671
Christina Maar AndersenDepartment of Psychology, Syddansk Universitet Det Sundhedsvidenskabelige Fakultet, Odense, Denmark.
Mads Lind IngemanAcute Medical Admission Unit, Aarhus Universitetshospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Peter VedstedResearch Unit for General Practice, Aarhus Universitet, Aarhus, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo examine whether the quality of the patient-physician relationship, assessed by the general practitioner (GP) and the patient, associates with GPs' use of gut feeling (GF) in cancer diagnosis.

designCross-sectional questionnaire survey of cancer patients and their GPs.

settingDanish primary care.

participantsNewly diagnosed cancer patients and their GPs. Patients completed a questionnaire and provided the name of the GP to whom they have presented their symptoms. The named GP subsequently received a questionnaire. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: GPs' use of GF in the diagnostic process for the particular patient. GPs who answered that they used their GF 'to a high degree' or 'to a very high degree' were categorised as 'used their GF to a great extent'. GPs who answered that they used their GF 'to some degree', 'to a limited degree' or 'not at all' were categorised as 'limited or no use of GF'.

resultsGPs were less likely to use GF when they assessed relational aspects of the patient encounter as difficult compared with less difficult (OR=0.67; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.97). The physician-reported level of empathy was positively associated with use of GF (OR=2.60; 95% CI 1.60 to 4.22). The lower use of GF in difficult encounters was not modified by level of empathy.

conclusionsExperiencing relational aspects of patient encounter as difficult acted as a barrier for the use of GF in cancer diagnosis. Although physician-rated empathy increased use of GF, high empathy did not dissolve the low use of GF in difficult encounters. As diagnosis of cancer is a key challenge in primary care, it is important that GPs are aware that the sensitivity of cancer-related GF is compromised by a difficult patient-physician relationship.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelEmotionsPhysician-Patient RelationsPrimary Health CareAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGeneral PractitionersHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesSurveys and Questionnairesadult oncologymental healthprimary carepublic health

Identifiers

PMID31289073
PMCPMC6629394

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.