ArticleBJPsych open2025
Discussing the potential consequences of a diagnostic label before routine non-cancer screening: qualitative study with general practitioners and consumers.
Article in BJPsych open, 2025. 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.
- Yonder: Physician's end-of-life care preferences, diagnostic labels, electronic health record interoperability, and opioid prescriptions.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Article
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
backgroundA diagnostic label can have harms and benefits, particularly when provided following routine health screening tests. Whether these are discussed in clinical encounters is unknown.
aimsTo investigate whether potential impacts of diagnostic labelling are discussed before routine screening for non-cancer health conditions and explore the perceived value of such discussions by general practitioners (GPs) and healthcare consumers.
methodEleven semi-structured interviews with GPs and two focus groups with eight consumers were conducted. Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis methods based on framework analysis.
resultsPrior to routine screening, most GPs did not discuss the potential consequences of diagnostic labelling, and no consumer recalled discussions of this nature. In contrast, many GPs provided information regarding the screening procedure and possible test limitations. Both GPs and consumers identified that it would be valuable to discuss the potential impacts of a diagnostic label; however, preferences varied as to the content and timing (i.e. before or after screening) of this discussion. Six themes that examine the utility of discussing the consequences of diagnostic labelling were identified: patient empowerment, patient variability, condition-specific information, GP and patient interactions and relationship, GP role and responsibilities, and characteristics of screening.
conclusionsThe practice and perceived value of discussing diagnostic labelling consequences were recognised as important by both GPs and consumers. However, preferences regarding the content of discussions and whether these occurred in clinical encounters before or after screening varied.
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.