ArticleBMC primary care2024
A cross-sectional study exploring general practitioners' views on dietary supplements.
Article in BMC primary care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- General Practitioners' Views on Communication About Dietary Supplements During Periodic Health Examinations: A Cross-Sectional Survey in Germany.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
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
backgroundDietary supplements (DS) are often used by patients to enhance their health and well-being. General practitioners (GPs) are commonly the first point of contact for patients who enquire about DS. The aim of this study was to explore GPs' views on DS.
methodsA cross-sectional purposeful recruitment online survey of 162 general practitioners (GPs) in Germany was conducted between May and August 2021. The questionnaire assessed GPs' views on dietary supplements (DS), including perceptions of safety, efficacy, and importance in medical practice. Data were analyzed using inferential statistics and logistic regression analyses to explore associations between GPs' views and demographic factors.
resultsResponse rate could not be determined because multipliers were included here by means of personal networks, consent rate was 100%. Many respondents considered DS to be an important topic in their daily practice (64,8%, n = 99). Almost two thirds were convinced of their efficacy and considered DS to be safe for use (61,2%, n = 93). However, the majority of respondents were in favor of more standardized guidelines (86.8%, n = 132) and improved medical education on the handling of DS in routine care (89,5%, n = 136). Physicians who self-administered DS were statistically significantly more likely to perceive them as safe to use, with an OR of 4.25 (95% CI: 1.74-10.40). Self-administration [OR 4.52 (1.67-12.22)] and participation in continuous medical education (CME) [OR 3.52 (1.133-9.38)] were positively associated with perceiving them as an important topic.
conclusionsTo the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to assess German GPs' perceptions regarding DS. The majority of physicians recognized the importance of DS in routine care but wished for improved regulation and more standardized guidelines regarding their use. The findings could be used to develop targeted educational interventions and improve handling of DS in daily general practice.
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.