Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33199312›Full record

ArticleBJGP open2021

GP decisions to participate in emergencies: a randomised vignette study.

Magnus Hjortdahl, Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, Peder A Halvorsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJGP open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Magnus HjortdahlDepartment of Community Medicine, UiT The Arctic University of Norway Faculty of Health Sciences, Tromsø, Norway magnus.hjortdahl@uit.no.
Dorte Gyrd-HansenDepartment of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Peder A HalvorsenDepartment of Community Medicine, UiT The Arctic University of Norway Faculty of Health Sciences, Tromsø, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGPs use their judgement on whether to participate in emergencies; however, little is known about how GPs make their decisions on emergency participation.

aimTo test whether GPs' participation in emergencies is associated with cause of symptoms, distance to the patient, other patients waiting, and out-of-hours (OOH) clinic characteristics. DESIGN &

settingAn online survey was sent to all GPs in Norway (

methodGPs were randomised to vignettes describing a patient with acute shortness of breath and asked whether they would participate in a callout. The vignettes varied with respect to cause of symptoms (trauma versus illness), distance to the patient (15 minutes versus 45 minutes), and other patients waiting at the OOH clinic (crowding versus no crowding). The survey included questions about OOH clinic characteristics.

resultsOf the 1013 GPs (22%) who responded, 76% reported that they would participate. The proportion was higher in trauma (83% versus 69%, χ

conclusionGPs were less likely to participate in emergencies when the incident was not owing to trauma, was far away, and when other patients were waiting. A manned-response vehicle and regular team training were associated with increased participation.

Indexed as

emergenciesgeneral practiceprehospital careprimary health care

Identifiers

PMID33199312
PMCPMC7960522

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.