Cargando…

Exploring the general practitioners’ point of view about clinical scores: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Clinical scores help physicians to make clinical decisions, and some are recommended by health authorities for primary care use. As an increasing number of scores are becoming available, there is a need to understand general practitioner expectations for their use in primary care. The ai...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pautrat, Maxime, Palluau, Remy, Druilhe, Loic, Lebeau, Jean Pierre
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10262349/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37309014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41512-023-00149-x
_version_ 1785058042033733632
author Pautrat, Maxime
Palluau, Remy
Druilhe, Loic
Lebeau, Jean Pierre
author_facet Pautrat, Maxime
Palluau, Remy
Druilhe, Loic
Lebeau, Jean Pierre
author_sort Pautrat, Maxime
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Clinical scores help physicians to make clinical decisions, and some are recommended by health authorities for primary care use. As an increasing number of scores are becoming available, there is a need to understand general practitioner expectations for their use in primary care. The aim of this study was to explore general practitioner opinions about using scores in general practice. METHOD: This qualitative study, with a grounded theory approach, used focus groups with general practitioners recruited from their own surgeries to obtain verbatim. Two investigators performed verbatim analysis to ensure data triangulation. The verbatim was double-blind labeled for inductive categorization to conceptualize score use in general practice. RESULTS: Five focus groups were planned, 21 general practitioners from central France participated. Participants appreciated scores for their clinical efficacy but felt that they were difficult to use in primary care. Their opinions revolved around validity, acceptability, and feasibility. Participants have little regard for score validity, they felt many scores are difficult to accept and do not capture contextual and human elements. Participants also felt that scores are unfeasible for primary care use. There are too many, they are hard to find, and either too short or too long. They also felt that scores were complex to administer and took up time for both patient and physician. Many participants felt learned societies should choose appropriate scores. DISCUSSION: This study conceptualizes general practitioner opinions about score use in primary care. The participants weighed up score effectiveness with efficiency. For some participants, scores helped make decisions faster, others expressed being disappointed with the lack of patient-centeredness and limited bio-psycho-social approach. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41512-023-00149-x.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10262349
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102623492023-06-15 Exploring the general practitioners’ point of view about clinical scores: a qualitative study Pautrat, Maxime Palluau, Remy Druilhe, Loic Lebeau, Jean Pierre Diagn Progn Res Research BACKGROUND: Clinical scores help physicians to make clinical decisions, and some are recommended by health authorities for primary care use. As an increasing number of scores are becoming available, there is a need to understand general practitioner expectations for their use in primary care. The aim of this study was to explore general practitioner opinions about using scores in general practice. METHOD: This qualitative study, with a grounded theory approach, used focus groups with general practitioners recruited from their own surgeries to obtain verbatim. Two investigators performed verbatim analysis to ensure data triangulation. The verbatim was double-blind labeled for inductive categorization to conceptualize score use in general practice. RESULTS: Five focus groups were planned, 21 general practitioners from central France participated. Participants appreciated scores for their clinical efficacy but felt that they were difficult to use in primary care. Their opinions revolved around validity, acceptability, and feasibility. Participants have little regard for score validity, they felt many scores are difficult to accept and do not capture contextual and human elements. Participants also felt that scores are unfeasible for primary care use. There are too many, they are hard to find, and either too short or too long. They also felt that scores were complex to administer and took up time for both patient and physician. Many participants felt learned societies should choose appropriate scores. DISCUSSION: This study conceptualizes general practitioner opinions about score use in primary care. The participants weighed up score effectiveness with efficiency. For some participants, scores helped make decisions faster, others expressed being disappointed with the lack of patient-centeredness and limited bio-psycho-social approach. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41512-023-00149-x. BioMed Central 2023-06-13 /pmc/articles/PMC10262349/ /pubmed/37309014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41512-023-00149-x Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Research
Pautrat, Maxime
Palluau, Remy
Druilhe, Loic
Lebeau, Jean Pierre
Exploring the general practitioners’ point of view about clinical scores: a qualitative study
title Exploring the general practitioners’ point of view about clinical scores: a qualitative study
title_full Exploring the general practitioners’ point of view about clinical scores: a qualitative study
title_fullStr Exploring the general practitioners’ point of view about clinical scores: a qualitative study
title_full_unstemmed Exploring the general practitioners’ point of view about clinical scores: a qualitative study
title_short Exploring the general practitioners’ point of view about clinical scores: a qualitative study
title_sort exploring the general practitioners’ point of view about clinical scores: a qualitative study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10262349/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37309014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41512-023-00149-x
work_keys_str_mv AT pautratmaxime exploringthegeneralpractitionerspointofviewaboutclinicalscoresaqualitativestudy
AT palluauremy exploringthegeneralpractitionerspointofviewaboutclinicalscoresaqualitativestudy
AT druilheloic exploringthegeneralpractitionerspointofviewaboutclinicalscoresaqualitativestudy
AT lebeaujeanpierre exploringthegeneralpractitionerspointofviewaboutclinicalscoresaqualitativestudy