Why general practitioners do not implement evidence: Qualitative study

325Citations
Citations of this article
81Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objectives: To explore the reasons why general practitioners do not always implement best evidence. Design: Qualitative study using Balint-style groups. Setting Primary care. Participants: 19 general practitioners. Main outcome measures: Identifiable themes that indicate barriers to implementation. Results: Six main themes were identified that affected the implementation process: the personal and professional experiences of the general practitioners; the patient-doctor relationship; a perceived tension between primary and secondary care; general practitioners' feelings about their patients and the evidence; and logistical problems. Doctors are aware that their choice of words with patients can affect patients' decisions and whether evidence is implemented. Conclusions: General practitioner participants seem to act as a conduit within the consultation and regard clinical evidence as a square peg to fit in the round hole of the patient's life. The process of implementation is complex, fluid, and adaptive.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Freeman, A. C., & Sweeney, K. (2001). Why general practitioners do not implement evidence: Qualitative study. British Medical Journal, 323(7321), 1100–1102. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1100

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free