ArticleBMC primary care2022
Patients' gut feelings seem useful in primary care professionals' decision making.
Article in BMC primary care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The anxiety engine.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Article
- Physicians' appraisal of parental concerns: a qualitative assessment.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Article
- Exploring expressed concerns and uncanny feeling in patients with shortness of breath calling out-of-hours primary care.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- A qualitative exploration of the pathway to diagnosis and treatment of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck with perineural spread.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- How patients in general practice voice and value their gut feelings about health: a qualitative interview study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFamily physicians' diagnostic gut feelings have proved to be valuable. But what about patients' gut feelings? Research has shown that patients' gut feelings may contribute to their physicians' clinical reasoning. Dutch medical tribunals consider patients' worry useful for doctors' diagnostic process. However, how general practitioners and other primary care professionals recognize gut feelings of patients and deal with them in their decision making is yet unclear. We aim to explore how primary care professionals perceive patients' gut feelings and use this information in their decision-making.
methodsWe interviewed 30 Dutch and Belgian primary care professionals, exploring how they recognize and value patients' gut feelings. We coded all interviews using a descriptive content analysis in an iterative process. Data sufficiency was achieved.
resultsPrimary care professionals acknowledged gut feelings in their patients, and most participants found them a useful source of information. Patients' gut feelings might alert them to possible hidden problems and might provide quicker insight into patients' perceptions. Primary care professionals listed a whole series of wordings relating to trusting or distrusting the situation or to any changes in normal patterns. A patient's gut feeling was often a reason for the professionals to explore patients' worries and to reconsider their own clinical reasoning.
conclusionsPrimary care professionals regularly considered patients' gut feelings useful, as they might contribute to their clinical reasoning and to a deeper understanding of the patient's problem. The next step could be to ask patients themselves about their gut feelings and explore their diagnostic value.
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.