ArticleBMC primary care2026
Managing diagnostic uncertainty in primary care: a mixed-methods study of family physicians' experiences in Türkiye.
Article in BMC primary care, 2026. 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.
- A Simulation-Based Diagnostic Stewardship Framework for Imaging Utilization in Primary Care: A Model Using 100 Common Clinical Conditions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical uncertainty is an inherent component of primary care practice. Family physicians frequently face diagnostic ambiguity, time pressure, and limited access to diagnostic resources, which may affect decision-making and patient outcomes. However, evidence on how family physicians in Türkiye manage diagnostic uncertainty remains limited.
methodsThis mixed-methods study included 20 family physicians practicing in primary care settings in Türkiye. Quantitative data were collected using the Physicians’ Reactions to Uncertainty Scale (PRUS) and the Melbourne Decision-Making Questionnaire I-II (MDMQ). Semi-structured interviews were then conducted and analyzed thematically using the Braun and Clarke framework.
resultsQuantitative findings showed moderate-to-high emotional reactions to uncertainty and variation in decision-making styles among participants. Thematic analysis of the interviews revealed six key themes: diagnostic challenges and systemic barriers as major sources of uncertainty; specialist consultation, peer support, and patient communication as the main coping strategies; and the significant influence of patient compliance, physicians’ experience, and time pressure on decision-making. High patient load, referral difficulties, and inadequate digital systems were identified as major health system challenges. Physicians consistently emphasized the importance of case-based training and professional development, while also highlighting the role of transparent physician–patient communication in reducing uncertainty.
conclusionsDiagnostic uncertainty is a multifaceted challenge in primary care in Türkiye, influenced by individual, systemic, and patient-related factors. Strengthening case-based educational programs, improving referral processes, and reducing patient load may enhance physicians’ ability to manage uncertainty and improve patient outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.