Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34561250›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2021

Patient-initiated second medical consultations-patient characteristics and motivating factors, impact on care and satisfaction: a systematic review.

Geva Greenfield, Liora Shmueli, Amy Harvey, Harumi Quezada-Yamamoto, Nadav Davidovitch, Joseph S Pliskin, Salman Rawaf, Azeem Majeed, Benedict Hayhoe

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Two Heads Are Better Than One: Second Opinions and Collaborations in Oncology.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2026
    Article
  9. A New Approach to Cancer Second Opinions: Overcoming the Challenges of Conventional Oncology Practice by Providing Education to Patients and Physicians.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Second opinions for spinal surgery: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2022
    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

9 authors.

Geva GreenfieldPrimary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London Department of Life Sciences, London, UK g.greenfield@ic.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-9779-2486
Liora ShmueliDepartment of Management, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel.
Amy HarveyPrimary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London Department of Life Sciences, London, UK.
Harumi Quezada-YamamotoPrimary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London Department of Life Sciences, London, UK.
Nadav DavidovitchHealth Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel.
Joseph S PliskinHealth Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel.
Salman RawafPrimary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London Department of Life Sciences, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7191-2355
Azeem MajeedPrimary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London Department of Life Sciences, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2357-9858
Benedict HayhoePrimary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London Department of Life Sciences, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2645-6191

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo review the characteristics and motivations of patients seeking second opinions, and the impact of such opinions on patient management, satisfaction and cost effectiveness. DATA SOURCES: Embase, Medline, PsycINFO and Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC) databases. STUDY

designA systematic literature search was performed for terms related to second opinion and patient characteristics. Study quality was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION

methodsWe included articles focused on patient-initiated second opinions, which provided quantitative data on their impact on diagnosis, treatment, prognosis or patient satisfaction, described the characteristics or motivating factors of patients who initiated a second opinion, or the cost-effectiveness of patient-initiated second opinions. PRINCIPAL

findingsThirty-three articles were included in the review. 29 studies considered patient characteristics, 19 patient motivating factors, 10 patient satisfaction and 17 clinical agreement between the first and second opinion. Seeking a second opinion was more common in women, middle-age patients, more educated patients; and in people having a chronic condition, with higher income or socioeconomic status or living in central urban areas. Patients seeking a second opinion sought to gain more information or reassurance about their diagnosis or treatment. While many second opinions confirm the original diagnosis or treatment, discrepancies in opinions had a potential major impact on patient outcomes in up to 58% of cases. No studies reported on the cost effectiveness of patient initiated second opinions.

conclusionsThis review identified several demographic factors associated with seeking a second opinion, including age, gender, health status, and socioeconomic status. Differences in opinion received, and in the impact of change in opinion, varies significantly between medical specialties. More research is needed to understand the cost effectiveness of second opinions and identify patient groups most likely to benefit from second opinions.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionReferral and ConsultationChronic DiseaseCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedMotivationgeneral medicine (see internal medicine)health services administration & managementquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID34561250
PMCPMC8475134

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.