ArticleJournal of education and health promotion2022
A qualitative approach to identify clinical uncertainty in practicing physicians and clinical residents.
Article in Journal of education and health promotion, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of professional experience and practice setting on clinical decision-making and anxiety in peri-implantitis management: a cross-sectional survey study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Association between uncertainty stress and self-rated health among Chinese healthcare professionals: a nationwide cross-sectional survey.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Machine learning in predicting infertility treatment success: A systematic literature review of techniques.Journal of education and health promotion · 2025Review
- Correlation between uncertainty stress and depression among healthcare professionals in China: a nationwide cross-sectional survey.BMJ open · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical decision-making is not only stressful to physicians, but also to patients and even their companions. Thus, managing uncertainty in clinical decision-making is essential which requires knowing its origins. Therefore, this study aimed to understand determinants of uncertainty in clinical decision-making from the perspective of clinical physicians. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis is a qualitative study which is done during October to November 2020. An in-depth interview is performed with 24 specialists of clinical groups including obstetrics, surgery, internal medicine, and pediatrics, working in teaching hospitals affiliated to Iran University of Medical Sciences. All the interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed according to the steps suggested by Graneheim and Lundman. The interviews were analyzed through comparative method. Then, the interviewer created initial codes, categories, and key concepts and sent them to fourteen physicians for member check.
resultsAccording to the participants' view, determinants of uncertainty in clinical decision-making consisted of three themes: individual determinants, dynamics of medical sciences, and diagnostic and instrumental constraint. Individual determinants can be related to the physician or patient. The dynamics of medical sciences could be explained in two categories: variation of medical science and complexity. Diagnostic and instrumental constraint category could be also explained in subcategories such as lack of efficient diagnostic tests and unknown etiology.
conclusionTo curb uncertainty, the more accessible way is considering interventional programs with a focus on individual determinants related to physicians, such as strengthening doctor-patient relationships, and considering related mandatory retraining courses to reduce insufficient knowledge of physicians.
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.