Contextual factors in clinical decision making: national survey of Canadian family physicians.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: Many factors are at play in the process of clinical decision making, but to date, the interaction of these factors has not been well understood. Such information could have important implications for teaching and promoting evidence-based medicine (EBM) in primary care. This study was designed to explore the relationship between physician-related variables and management of patient-related contextual factors in clinical decision making. A secondary objective was to examine the extent to which this relationship varies by type of clinical decision. DESIGN: Cross-sectional randomized postal survey of 1134 Canadian primary care physicians stratified by age, sex, and practice location. Nonrespondents were sent reminders at 4 weeks and again at 8 weeks; at 12 weeks, all remaining nonrespondents were mailed replacement copies of the questionnaire. SETTING: Family practices in Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Of the final sample of 431 family physicians, 52% were men, 63% practised in urban locations, and 71% were in group practice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported likelihood of considering various contextual factors during the course of clinical decision making. RESULTS: Despite the three follow-up mailings, the final response rate was 42%; however, nonrespondents did not differ significantly from respondents on three important demographic factors: age, sex, and practice location. Using multinomial logistic regression analysis, the data showed that female family physicians and practitioners less strongly identified with EBM were more likely to consider contextual factors in clinical decision making. The effect was more obvious for ordering tests than for decisions about treatment. CONCLUSION: The evolving model of EBM should consider important physician-related variables in clinical decision making. Our data indicate that physicians' sex and identification with the tenets of EBM influence management of contextual factors. These results have important implications because they indicate that clinicians strongly identified with the EBM model of clinical practice are less sensitive to context, which might be an obstacle to efforts to integrate patient values and clinical circumstances into patient-centred care. We believe these findings support continued development of the model of "context-sensitive medicine" previously proposed as an alternative to EBM.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».