ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2020
Shared decision making about blood tests: secondary analysis of video-recorded primary care consultations.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identifying people at risk of rheumatoid arthritis in primary care: a qualitative study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Article
- GPs' perspectives on diagnostic testing in children with persistent non-specific symptoms: a qualitative study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Article
- Understanding the patient's experience of coeliac disease diagnosis: a qualitative interview study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024Article
- 'It feels like my metabolism has shut down'. Negotiating interactional roles and epistemic positions in a primary care consultation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- Blood tests in primary care: A qualitative study of communication and decision-making between doctors and patients.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAwareness of the importance of shared decision making (SDM) is widespread; however, little research has focused on discussions surrounding investigations, despite increasing laboratory testing in primary care.
aimTo explore the discussion of blood tests in routine primary care consultations. DESIGN AND
settingA secondary analysis of 50 video-recorded routine primary care consultations, linked surveys, and records data (all from the One in a Million [OiaM] archive). The consultations were taken by 22 GPs across 12 practices.
methodA coding scheme was developed, using qualitative content analysis, to explore discussion of blood tests in transcripts of recorded consultations. Codes focused on instigating testing, the extent of SDM, and how results were explained. Survey data were used to compare patients' pre-visit expectations with consultation content. Medical records were reviewed to compare tests discussed with those ordered.
resultsIn 36 out of 50 consultations that discussed ordering blood tests, 11 patients (31%) hinted that they wanted a blood test; however, none asked explicitly. Only four patients (11%) were offered alternative options. In 29 cases (81%) the GP gave some explanation of the indication, but only in six cases (17%) were the limitations of testing explained. Only 10 out of 31 patients (32%) were informed about all blood tests ordered. Of the 23 out of 50 consultations in which results were conveyed, the GP gave no explanation of the results in six cases (26%). Thirteen patients (57%) were only informed of an assessment of the results (for example, 'normal'), rather than the actual results.
conclusionA lack of information dissemination and SDM exists around ordering tests and conveying results. Promoting SDM could reduce unnecessary testing and improve patient-centred care.
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.