Second opinions, multiple physician appointments, and overlapping prescriptions in the paediatric population: A systematic literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Doctor shopping, double doctoring, and overlapping prescriptions are often used as synonyms for multiple physician appointments in the same disease episode. Such behaviours translate into poor patient satisfaction and patient-doctor communication as well as abuse or misuse of drugs, increasing health care costs and resulting in negative health consequences. This systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify factors that drive doctor-shopping behaviour in children's caregivers. METHODS: The search was conducted in PubMed and grey literature and was based on the following search terms: included doctor or physician shopping, drug seeking, double doctoring, children, and combinations of those. Overall, 500 records were identified, of which 11 were selected for qualitative synthesis. Data extracted considered definitions of doctor shopping, co-morbidities, and target population characteristics. RESULTS: Definitions of doctor shopping were inconsistent. The frequency of doctor shopping was high for acute illnesses and ranged from 53% in children with a fever in Hong Kong to 18% at an emergency department in Canada. The incidence of this phenomenon was low when taking into account addictive drugs and was rated at 0.02% to 0.3% in the full paediatric population. This phenomenon was more prevalent in children younger than 1 year, in children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and co-morbid psychiatric conditions, and in those whose caregivers themselves had psychiatric conditions. It was more frequent in cases with an acute disease (eg, fever, gastroenteritis, and urinary tract infection) than a chronic disease (eg, asthma). CONCLUSIONS: The knowledge about doctor shopping by children's caregivers is limited, despite that this is a frequent behaviour. There is a need for further research covering a broader range of diseases. The causes and consequences of doctor shopping should be sought as well to investigate its relation to health care regulations and possibility to reduce unnecessary medical resource utilization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".