ArticleCMAJ open
Management of sleep disorder by preceptors in a family medicine residency program in Calgary, Alberta: a mixed-methods study.
Article in CMAJ open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMost prescriptions for sedative-hypnotics are written by family physicians. Given the influence of preceptors on residents' prescribing, this study explored how family physician preceptors manage sleeping problems.
methodsFamily physician preceptors affiliated with a postgraduate training program in Alberta were invited to participate in this mixed-methods study, conducted from January to October 2021. It included a quantitative survey of preceptors' attitudes to treatment options for sleep disorder, perceptions of patient expectations and self-efficacy beliefs. Participants indicated their responses on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." Respondents were then asked whether they were interested in participating in a semistructured qualitative interview that elicited preceptors' management of sleep disorder in response to a series of vignettes. We analyzed the quantitative data using descriptive statistics and the qualitative interviews using thematic analysis.
resultsOf the 76 preceptors invited to participate, 47 (62%) completed the survey, and 10 were interviewed. Thirty-two survey respondents (68%) were in academic teaching clinics, and 15 (32%) were from community clinics. The majority of participants (34 [72%]) agreed they had sufficient expertise to use nondrug treatment. Most (43 [91%]) had made efforts to reduce prescribing, and 45 (96%) felt able to support patients empathically when not using sleeping medication. The qualitative data showed that management of sleeping disorder was emotionally challenging. Participants hesitated to prescribe sedatives and reported "exceptions" to prescribing, many of which included indications within guideline recommendations. Participants were reluctant to change a colleague's management.
interpretationPreceptors were confident using nonpharmacologic management to treat sleep disorder and hesitant to use sedative-hypnotics, presenting legitimate use of sedatives as exceptional behaviour. Acknowledging social norms and affective aspects involved in prescribing may support balanced prescribing of sedative-hypnotics for sleep disorder and reduce physician anxiety.
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.