Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31787078›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2019

General practitioners referring patients to specialists in tertiary healthcare: a qualitative study.

Konstantinos Tzartzas, Pierre-Nicolas Oberhauser, Régis Marion-Veyron, Céline Bourquin, Nicolas Senn, Friedrich Stiefel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. A Bibliometric Analysis and Visualization of Decision Support Systems for Healthcare Referral Strategies.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Evaluating referrals between rural district hospitals and a regional hospital in South Africa.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  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

6 authors.

Konstantinos TzartzasCenter for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Rue du Bugnon 44, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland. konstantinos.tzartzas@unisante.ch.ORCID 0000-0002-2188-4517
Pierre-Nicolas OberhauserFaculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Lausanne, UNIL, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Régis Marion-VeyronCenter for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Rue du Bugnon 44, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Céline BourquinPsychiatry Liaison Service, University Hospital of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Nicolas SennCenter for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Rue du Bugnon 44, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Friedrich StiefelPsychiatry Liaison Service, University Hospital of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a large and unexplained variation in referral rates to specialists by general practitioners, which calls for investigations regarding general practitioners' perceptions and expectations during the referral process. Our objective was to describe the decision-making process underlying referral of patients to specialists by general practitioners working in a university outpatient primary care center.

methodsTwo focus groups were conducted among general practitioners (10 residents and 8 chief residents) working in the Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté) of the University of Lausanne, in Switzerland. Focus group data were analyzed with thematic content analysis. A feedback group of general practitioners validated the results.

resultsParticipating general practitioners distinguished two kinds of situations regarding referral: a) "clear-cut situations", in which the decision to refer or not seems obvious and b) "complex cases", in which they hesitate to refer or not. Regarding the "complex cases", they reported various types of concerns: a) about the treatment, b) about the patient and the doctor-patient relationship and c) about themselves. General practitioners evoked numerous reasons for referring, including non-medical factors such as influencing patients' emotions, earning specialists' esteem or sharing responsibility. They also explained that they seek validation by colleagues and postpone referral so as to relieve some of the decision-related distress.

conclusionsGeneral practitioners' referral of patients to specialists cannot be explained in biomedical terms only. It seems necessary to take into account the fact that referral is a sensitive topic for general practitioners, involving emotionally charged interactions and relationships with patients, colleagues, specialists and supervisors. The decision to refer or not is influenced by multiple contextual, personal and clinical factors that dynamically interact and shape the decision-making process.

Indexed as

General PractitionersMedicineReferral and ConsultationTertiary Health CareDecision MakingFocus GroupsHumansQualitative ResearchGeneral practitionerPrimary careQualitative researchReferral processTertiary healthcare

Identifiers

PMID31787078
PMCPMC6885318

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.