Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34783285›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2021

General practice - a fertile lagoon in the ocean of medical knowledge.

Kirsti Malterud, Harald Kamps

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Clinical practice enhanced by interdisciplinary theoretical perspectives.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Kirsti MalterudResearch Unit for General Practice, NORCE Norwegian Research Centre, Bergen, Norway.
Harald KampsLebendig Altern - Möckernkiez, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

General practitioners (GPs) often find that linear, deductive knowledge does not provide a sufficient map for clinical management. But experience, accompanied by enduring familiarity with individual patients, may offer unique complementary skills to interpret a patient's symptoms and navigate skilfully through diagnosis, treatment, follow-up and prevention.In this article, we draw attention to the nature of this tacit knowing that is executed by many GPs every day. We argue that the nonlinear, unpredictable complexity of this domain nurtures a particular logic of clinical knowing. This kind of knowledge is not intuition and can to some extent be intersubjectively accessible. We substantiate and discuss how and why general practice research can contribute to knowledge development by transforming reflection-in-action to reflection-on-action.We briefly present some concepts for reflection-on-action of clinical knowing in general practice. The VUCA model (volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity) embraces dynamic and confusing situations in which agile work (adaptive, flexible and responsive behaviour and cognitive creativity) is assumed to be an appropriate response. Using such perspectives, we may sharpen our gaze and apply reflexivity and analytic elaboration to interpret unique incidents and experiences and appreciate the complexity of general practice. In this way, exploratory research can fertilize general practice and offer innovation to the entire domain of clinical knowledge.

Indexed as

General PracticeGeneral PractitionersFamily PracticeHumansKnowledgeOceans and Seasclinical decision-makingdiagnosisknowledge(MeSH): General practicetherapeuticsuncertainty

Identifiers

PMID34783285
PMCPMC8725917

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.