Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39025824›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2024

Defensive healthcare practice: systematic review of qualitative evidence.

Theo Lorenc, Claire Khouja, Melissa Harden, Helen Fulbright, James Thomas

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Nursing management decisions in fever: a mixed-methods approach to understanding.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The Iran Healthcare Professionals' Charter of Rights.Archives of Iranian medicine · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Theo LorencCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK theo.lorenc@york.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-8937-6378
Claire KhoujaCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9571-3147
Melissa HardenCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.
Helen FulbrightCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.
James ThomasUniversity College London Social Science Research Unit, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo synthesise qualitative evidence on clinicians' views and experiences of defensive practice.

designSystematic review of qualitative data. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, Maternity and Infant Care, CINAHL, ASSIA, Sociological Abstracts, Proquest Dissertations & Theses and PROSPERO were searched from 2000 to October 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included English-language studies of clinicians which reported qualitative data on the impact of litigation or complaints on clinical practice. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We coded findings data line by line using a grounded theory approach. We assessed quality using Hawker

results17 studies were included. Participants identify a range of clinical decisions which may be defensively motivated, relating to diagnosis and documentation as well as to treatment. Defensive practice often relates to a diffuse sense of risk rather than the direct threat of litigation and may overlap with other motivations, such as perceived pressure from patients or the desire to avoid harm. Defensive practice is seen to be harmful in many ways, but again, these perceptions may gain force from broader narratives of mistrust and disempowerment, as much as from the risk of litigation.

conclusionsThe idea of defensive practice, as enacted, is more complex than some theoretical accounts suggest and may often function to express broader concerns about the work of clinical care. The qualitative evidence calls into question the view of defensive practice as a key mediator linking litigation risk to inappropriate treatment and excess costs.

Indexed as

Defensive MedicineQualitative ResearchAttitude of Health PersonnelHumansclinical decision-makingmedical lawphysiciansqualitative researchsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39025824
PMCPMC11261683

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.