Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40230025›Full record

ArticleSociology of health & illness2025

The Gatekeeper's Dilemma: Unpacking the Complexity of Low-Value Care in General Practice.

Olivia Spalletta, Sara Green

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sociology of health & illness, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  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

2 authors.

Olivia SpallettaDepartment of Science Education, Section for History and Philosophy of Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0009-0003-7041-3185
Sara GreenDepartment of Science Education, Section for History and Philosophy of Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

Carlsbergfondet CF17-0016Danmarks Frie Forskningsfond 0132-00026B
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Low-value care (LVC) is increasingly the focus of debates on how to reduce the use of healthcare resources while maintaining quality care. General practitioners (GPs) are often considered central to this aim. Although GPs facilitate early disease detection, disease prevention and coordinated medical care, they must do so while aiming to protect both patients and the healthcare system from the harmful effects of medical overactivity. Public healthcare systems with gatekeeping practices, such as Denmark, lack many of the identified economic and structural incentives for LVC. Why then does LVC persist? Drawing on ethnographic observations and interviews with practising GPs, we explore how Danish GPs handle the difficult task of drawing a line between what requires medical attention and what should be left untreated or monitored. Our findings suggest that LVC literature may overlook the value of some interventions when used by GPs to improve patient trajectories over a longer term, maintain the relationship between patient and practitioner or balance the use of time and resources across the healthcare system. We clarify this point by unpacking the relational and context-dependent work of GPs, which is central to their capacity to serve as trusted gatekeepers.

Indexed as

GatekeepingGeneral PracticeGeneral PractitionersQuality of Health CareAnthropology, CulturalDenmarkFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMalePhysician-Patient RelationsQualitative Researchgatekeepinggeneral practicelow‐value caremedical overactivityrelational work

Identifiers

PMID40230025
PMCPMC11997420

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.