Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39668346›Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2024

Evaluation of the German living guideline "Protection against the Overuse and Underuse of Health Care" - an online survey among German GPs.

Lisette Warkentin, Martin Scherer, Thomas Kühlein, Felix Pausch, Dagmar Lühmann, Cathleen Muche-Borowski, Susann Hueber

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors.

Lisette WarkentinInstitute of General Practice, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Uniklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
Martin SchererInstitute and Polyclinic for Primary Care and Family Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany.
Thomas KühleinInstitute of General Practice, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Uniklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
Felix PauschInstitute of General Practice, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Uniklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
Dagmar LühmannInstitute and Polyclinic for Primary Care and Family Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany.
Cathleen Muche-BorowskiInstitute and Polyclinic for Primary Care and Family Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany.
Susann HueberInstitute of General Practice, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Uniklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany. susann.hueber@uk-erlangen.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the awareness and use of the German guideline "Protection against the overuse and underuse of health care" from the general practitioners' (GPs') perspective. In addition, the study assessed how GPs perceive medical overuse and what solutions they have for reducing it.

methodsWe performed a cross-sectional online survey with recruitment from 15.06. to 31.07.2023. Participants were members of the German College of General Practitioners and Family Physicians (DEGAM). The main outcomes were the awareness and use of the guideline.

resultsThe analysis included data from 626 physicians. 51% were female and the median age was 50 years. The guideline is known by 81% of the participants, 32% read it in more detail. The majority considered the guideline a helpful tool in reducing overuse (67%). Almost 90% wished to have more guidelines with clear do-not-do recommendations. Physicians indicated in mean (M) that 30.2% (SD = 19.3%) of patients ask them for medical services that they do not consider to be necessary and that M = 30.2% (SD = 18.1%) of all GP services can be attributed to medical overuse. About half of the participants thought that overuse is a moderate or major problem in their practice (52%) and in general practice overall (58%). More participants rated that it is especially a problem in specialist (87%) and inpatient care (82%). Changes in the reimbursement system, raising awareness for the problem and more evidence-based guidelines were considered helpful in mitigating overuse.

conclusionsAlthough the guideline is seen as a useful tool in mitigating medical overuse, there is still further potential for its implementation and utilisation. GPs see more overuse in the inpatient and outpatient specialist areas than in their area of practice. Instead of self-critically approaching the problem, the proposed strategies are aimed at the healthcare system itself.

Indexed as

General PractitionersAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGermanyGuideline AdherenceHealth Services MisuseHumansMaleMedical OveruseMiddle AgedPractice Guidelines as TopicPractice Patterns, Physicians'Surveys and QuestionnairesGuidelinesOverdiagnosisOverusePrimary care

Identifiers

PMID39668346
PMCPMC11636051

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.