ArticleBMJ open2025
'Harm? I don't think so!': medical overuse from the perspective of allied health professionals in Germany - a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectivesMedical overuse is a well-documented increasing issue, primarily examined in the context of physicians. Previous research has also identified unnecessary services involving allied health professionals (AHPs). The objectives of our study were to explore: (1) To what extent are physiotherapists (PT), occupational therapists (OT) or speech and language therapists (SLT) familiar with the phenomenon of medical overuse?, (2) What drivers do PTs, OTs and SLTs suspect?, (3) What are the consequences of medical overuse? and (4) What measures can be taken to reduce medical overuse?
designThis study used a qualitative descriptive design and applied qualitative content analysis to explore the AHPs' point of view. A qualitative content analysis using a deductive-inductive approach was conducted. After coding half of the interviews, no further categories were added, indicating data saturation.
settingBavaria, Germany.
participants14 AHPs, mostly female.
resultsAHPs struggled to define overuse. To them, underuse was perceived as a much more pressing issue. AHPs identified structural, economic, physician and patient-driven factors. They did not see themselves as part of the problem of medical overuse and assumed that their treatment, even without indication, has little to no disadvantage for patients. AHPs found it difficult to derive specific solutions; they named terminating unnecessary therapies and healthcare system reforms.
conclusionsAHPs lacked initial awareness of medical overuse, highlighting the need for education and broader research.
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.