Skip Navigation


International Journal for Quality in Health Care Advance Access originally published online on May 27, 2005
International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2005 17(5):409-414; doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzi054
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
17/5/409    most recent
mzi054v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lorenz, K. A.
Right arrow Articles by Shekelle, P. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lorenz, K. A.
Right arrow Articles by Shekelle, P. G.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

International Journal for Quality in Health Care vol. 17 no. 5 © The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Quality in Health Care; all rights reserved

A qualitative examination of primary care providers’ and physician managers’ uses and views of research evidence

Karl A. Lorenz1,2,3, Gery W. Ryan2, Sally C. Morton2,3, Kitty S. Chan2, Steven Wang1 and Paul G. Shekelle1,2,3

1 VA Greater Los Angles Healthcare System, General Internal Medicine, Los Angeles, USA, 2 RAND Corporation Santa Monica, USA, 3 UCLA, Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, USA

Objectives. To examine the reasons and search strategies related to physicians’ search for evidence and to compare clinician and physician manager approaches.

Design. Qualitative analysis of verbatim transcripts of four focus groups in 2002.

Study setting. Clinicians and managers in community practices in Southern California.

Participants. Pediatricians, family practitioners, and general internists (i.e. child and adult primary care providers) in non-academic practice and physician managers whose primary responsibility involved making management decisions within a moderate to large sized health care delivery system (e.g. health plan, community hospital, large group practice).

Main outcome measures. Themes related to clinician and manager reasons for using evidence and approach to selecting among evidence sources.

Results. Clinicians and managers differed substantially in their reasons for using evidence. Whereas clinicians consistently invoked clinical intuition as a guide to most routine clinical decisions, managers articulated both motivation and interest in using medical research to guide decision-making, most commonly prompted by cost. Both clinicians and managers rated trustworthiness as a paramount consideration in arbitrating between evidence sources, because neither group evinced comfort with the complexity of primary literature. Both groups expressed a preference for tested, convenient, and respected evidence sources such as expert colleagues and professional societies.

Conclusions. Because clinicians invoke intuition in confronting the challenges of daily practice, evidence-based medicine interventions that target managers are likely to have larger effects on health outcomes than those that target primary care providers and individual patient treatment. Ensuring trustworthiness of evidence is of the utmost importance. Because both groups express discomfort with the format of primary evidence sources, strategies should probably not rely on individual appraisal.

Keywords: evidence-based medicine, focus groups

Address reprint requests to Karl Lorenz, MD MSHS; Veterans Integrated Palliative Program; 11301 Wishire Blvd, Code 111-G; Los Angeles, CA 90064. Email: karl.lorenz{at}med.va.gov

Accepted for publication April 1, 2005.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
BMJHome page
C. Dowrick, G. M Leydon, A. McBride, A. Howe, H. Burgess, P. Clarke, S. Maisey, and T. Kendrick
Patients' and doctors' views on depression severity questionnaires incentivised in UK quality and outcomes framework: qualitative study
BMJ, March 19, 2009; 338(mar19_1): b663 - b663.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann Fam MedHome page
L. I. Solberg, K. S. Elward, W. R. Phillips, J. M. Gill, G. Swanson, D. S. Main, B. P. Yawn, J. W. Mold, R. L. Phillips Jr, and for the Napcrg Committee on Advancing the Science
How Can Primary Care Cross the Quality Chasm?
Ann. Fam. Med, March 1, 2009; 7(2): 164 - 169.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Med Decis MakingHome page
B. Spring
Health Decision Making: Lynchpin of Evidence-Based Practice
Med Decis Making, November 1, 2008; 28(6): 866 - 874.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Schizophr BullHome page
E. Bromley
Clinicians' Concepts of the Cognitive Deficits of Schizophrenia
Schizophr Bull, May 1, 2007; 33(3): 648 - 651.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Psychiatr. Serv.Home page
E. Bromley
Barriers to the Appropriate Clinical Use of Medications That Improve the Cognitive Deficits of Schizophrenia
Psychiatr Serv, April 1, 2007; 58(4): 475 - 481.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.