Content analysis of clinical questions from Australian general practice which are prioritised for answering: identifying common question types and perceived knowledge gaps.
general medicine
primary care
qualitative research
Journal
BMJ evidence-based medicine
ISSN: 2515-4478
Titre abrégé: BMJ Evid Based Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101719009
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2020
02 2020
Historique:
accepted:
27
05
2019
pubmed:
27
6
2019
medline:
21
10
2020
entrez:
26
6
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Perceived knowledge gaps in general practice are not well documented but must be understood to ensure relevant and timely evidence for busy general practitioners (GPs) which reflects their diverse and changing needs. The aim of this study was to classify the types of questions submitted by Australian GPs to an evidence-based practice information service using established and inductive coding systems. We analysed 126 clinical questions submitted by 53 Australian GPs over a 1.5-year period. Questions were coded using the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC-2 PLUS) and Ely and colleagues' generic questions taxonomy by two independent coders. Inductive qualitative content analysis was also used to identify perceived knowledge gaps. Treatment (71%), diagnosis (15%) and epidemiology (9%) were the most common categories of questions. Using the ICPC-2 classification, questions were most commonly coded to the endocrine/metabolic and nutritional chapter heading, followed by general and unspecified, digestive and musculoskeletal. Seventy per cent of all questions related to the need to stay up-to-date with the evidence, or be informed about new tests or treatments (including complementary and alternative therapies). These findings suggest that current guideline formats for common clinical problems may not meet the knowledge demands of GPs and there is gap in access to evidence updates on new tests, treatments and complementary and alternative therapies. Better systems for 'pulling' real-time questions from GPs could better inform the 'push' of more relevant and timely evidence for use in the clinical encounter.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31235528
pii: bmjebm-2019-111210
doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2019-111210
pmc: PMC7029252
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
15-21Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
J Adv Nurs. 2008 Apr;62(1):107-15
pubmed: 18352969
Aust Fam Physician. 2008 Jan-Feb;37(1-2):54-6
pubmed: 18239754
JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Feb;175(2):274-86
pubmed: 25531451
BMJ. 2006 May 6;332(7549):1053-6
pubmed: 16636023
JAMA Intern Med. 2014 May;174(5):710-8
pubmed: 24663331
J Med Internet Res. 2008 Mar 19;10(1):e6
pubmed: 18353750
Int J Med Inform. 2005 Jan;74(1):1-12
pubmed: 15626631
Aust Fam Physician. 2013 Jan-Feb;42(1-2):65-8
pubmed: 23529466
BMC Complement Altern Med. 2014 Feb 14;14:56
pubmed: 24529279
Artif Intell Med. 2009 May;46(1):55-66
pubmed: 18950994
J Med Libr Assoc. 2003 Jul;91(3):364-6
pubmed: 12883556
BMJ. 2017 Aug 16;358:j3879
pubmed: 28814436
J Med Libr Assoc. 2017 Jan;105(1):4-11
pubmed: 28096740
Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2011;2011:810908
pubmed: 21584192
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2018 Winter;38(1):41-48
pubmed: 29351133
Fam Pract. 2017 Sep 1;34(5):599-605
pubmed: 28369454
J Eval Clin Pract. 2014 Dec;20(6):793-802
pubmed: 25130323
PLoS Med. 2010 Sep 21;7(9):e1000326
pubmed: 20877712
Health Soc Care Community. 2017 Jan;25(1):114-122
pubmed: 26443878
J Altern Complement Med. 2007 Jul-Aug;13(6):643-50
pubmed: 17718647
Med J Aust. 2001 Aug 6;175(3):134-7
pubmed: 11548078
BMC Fam Pract. 2019 Mar 6;20(1):43
pubmed: 30841866
Aust Fam Physician. 2017 Oct;46(10):793-795
pubmed: 29036782
BMJ. 1999 Aug 7;319(7206):358-61
pubmed: 10435959