Family Practice Vol. 16, No. 6, 627-632
© Oxford University Press 1999
The attitudes of Australian GPs to evidence-based medicine: a focus group study
Department of Community Medicine and General Practice, Monash University, 867 Centre Road, East Bentleigh Victoria 3165, Australia.
Prof. Leon Piterman.
Mayer J and Piterman L. The attitudes of Australian GPs to evidence-based medicine: a focus group study. Family Practice 1999; 16: 627–632.
Received 9 September 1998; Revised 14 May 1999; Accepted 25 June 1999.
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Background. Over the last 6 years there has been an exponential increase in the publication of medical literature on evidence-based medicine. In Australia, as in many other parts of the world, there have been calls for an increase in the practice of evidence-based medicine. In general practice, two major themes of criticism have been the lack of relevant research evidence in primary care and the failure of evidence-based medicine to take into account the complexity of the consultation.
Objective.We aimed to explore the attitudes of Australian GPs to evidence-based medicine.
Methods.We conducted a qualitative study using evidence-based guidelines as a model to explore attitudes within focus group interviews. Focus group data were analysed using grounded theory methodology. The study was set in the Australian cities Melbourne, Adelaide and Darwin. The subjects were 27 GPs in five focus groups.
Results. Data were used to generate a model illustrating factors affecting the consideration and use of evidence within consultations. Prior beliefs and experience had a strong influence on decision-making. Overall, the GPs had a positive attitude to evidence-based medicine and stated that this could be a helpful strategy for meeting their information needs. These needs arose during the consultation and were frequently generated by patients. The evidence-based approach was regarded as particularly useful when patients required validation of their management or had specific queries. However, the GPs also expressed some concerns, such as the application of evidence from clinical trials to individuals, and the appropriateness of using research evidence with certain patients. They also feared a move away from the ‘art of medicine’. None of the GPs expressed a need for critical appraisal skills.
Conclusions.The Australian GPs in this study had mixed views about the increasing profile of evidence-based medicine, and the use of this paradigm in practice. Acceptability was more likely to be influenced by relevance to general practice and local contextual and patient factors than by the strength, or critical quality of the evidence.
Keywords. General practice, practice guidelines, qualitative.
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Over the last 6 years there has been an exponential increase in the publication of medical literature on evidence-based medicine.1 In Australia there have been calls for an increase in the practice of evidence-based medicine.2
A systematic review of the literature found few studies examining the attitudes of clinicians to evidence-based medicine or the use of evidence-based medicine in practice.3 Strong views have been expressed about the potential benefits4 and problems5,6 posed by evidence-based medicine. The lack of well-controlled studies documenting clinical outcomes meant that it was difficult to assess the validity of these opinions. In general practice, two major themes of criticism have been the lack of relevant research evidence in primary care and the failure of evidence-based medicine to take into account the complexity of the consultation.7,8 A recent survey of 302 English GPs showed a positive attitude to evidence-based medicine, but a low level of use of evidence-based resources.9 Greenhalgh has suggested that further qualitative research examining these issues is needed.10
The aim of this study was to use evidence-based guidelines as a model to provide an exploration of (i) the attitudes of GPs in Australia to using evidence-based medicine in their consultations and (ii) their attitude to the explicit presentation of evidence within guidelines.
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
A qualitative study was performed from November 1996–September 1997 using five semi-structured focus group interviews with a total of 27 GPs. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners Research Ethics Committee approved the project. Purposeful sampling was used to recruit participants who were anticipated to be good informants on evidence-based medicine.11 Group 1 consisted of six GPs recruited from a postgraduate course in Preventive Care at Monash University, Melbourne. Group 2 consisted of three GPs recruited from a postgraduate Diploma in General Practice in Adelaide and two of their practice colleagues. Group 3 consisted of five GP supervisors (trainers) recruited from the Adelaide Royal Australian College of General Practitioners' Training Program. Groups 4 and 5 consisted of 11 GPs in Darwin (population 70 000) sampled from the Darwin Urban Division of General Practice and known by the authors not to be involved in formal postgraduate study or academic practice. The groups were similar with respect to age and work-related interests.
The GPs were approached by letter. After agreeing to take part, the subjects were sent copies of the following pre-reading: The Australian National Health and Medical Research Councils' Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Early Breast Cancer (the first Australian evidence-based guideline); the North of England Guidelines on Asthma; and the Canadian Preventive Task Force Guidelines on Screening for Chlamydia. The pre-reading highlighted the methodology of evidence-based guidelines, including an explanation of levels of evidence and explicit evidence-based decision-making.
These guidelines were used during the focus group interviews to explore evidence-based medicine. A single investigator (JM, experienced in small group process), facilitated the focus group interviews using predetermined probes to illicit attitudes, rather than to dictate direction of the discussions.12 At the end of the focus groups (1.5 hours), the GPs were asked to complete a short questionnaire collecting demographic data and asked to state the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the following statement on a five-point visual analogue scale:
"All guidelines should present the explicit presentation of evidence on which their recommendations are based." [This was limited to a single statement owing to time constraints on the focus groups.]
These semi-quantitative data were then analysed and used as a method of triangulation13 to test the validity of the qualitative data analysis. The investigator was blind to this semi-quantitative data analysis during the qualitative data analysis.
Each focus group was recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data collection and analysis were guided by grounded theory methodology.14 Transcriptions were analysed (JM) to identify concepts and these were grouped into categories. The analysis was a continuous iterative process, with earlier data re-examined and identified concepts explored in subsequent focus groups. The focus groups were continued until no new categories were generated. A summary of the results was sent to all participating GPs.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Results of the demographic data and response to the questionnaire on guidelines are shown in Tables 1 and 2
. The relationships between the concepts and categories derived from the data analysis are shown in Figure 1 and illustrate the factors influencing the GPs' consideration and use of evidence within consultations.
|
|
|
Overall, the participants were positive about the explicit presentation of evidence within guidelines and the move towards evidence-based medicine. Throughout the focus groups, the attitudes of the GPs could be placed within two broad areas: (i) meeting information needs; and (ii) the context of general practice. The investigator's interpretation of the transcriptions was fed back to the participants for comment. None of the GPs disagreed with the results.
(1) Using evidence-based medicine to meet information needs (see Table 3)
Information needs and validating patient management strategies. .
The GPs stated that evidence-based guidelines were far more accessible than research articles as a guide for current best practice. Many stated that presenting levels of evidence highlighted areas that were important for them to know and to consider changing their practice. The GPs found the explicit presentation of evidence most useful for validating their management decisions to patients, and for answering specific patient queries (quote 3.14.55). Most felt that the graded levels of evidence allowed them to deviate from the recommendations where research evidence was less conclusive (quote 1.20.29).
|
Source of evidence: trust and faith. . The source of the evidence was one of the most important factors influencing the GP. This was true of guidelines, journal articles and advice from experts. Trust depended on the topic and the reputation of the source within the local GP community. Many expressed having "trust and faith" in guideline developers, local specialists and meta-analyses (quote 2.9.1). They stated that they did not trust evidence from pharmaceutical companies.
Interestingly, none of the GPs discussed the ability to critically appraise guidelines or whether the explicit presentation of the evidence was a quality by which they judged guidelines.
Hidden motives behind the evidence. . The GPs were concerned with hidden political and economic motives behind evidence presented to them. They were frequently unable to tell if recommendations were based on effectiveness or cost-effectiveness (quote 2.6.25). Most felt that cost containment should be made explicit in guidelines. Furthermore, they also felt that guidelines had the potential to reduce clinical autonomy. Many feared punitive measures, (legal and financial), against those who deviated from guidelines.
Attitudes to evidence: relevance to general practice. . The participants questioned the relevance of much of the research evidence included in guidelines, journals and other sources (quote 2.4.42). They stated that clinical trials were often far removed from their own practice. They were also concerned that those recommending different treatment strategies cited the same research evidence. However, none of the GPs stated that they would use the presentation of evidence to aid decision-making when faced with conflicting recommendations.
Prior beliefs. . Several GPs emphasized that their own clinical experience might be more influential on their decision-making than research evidence (quote 5.14.17). Some were especially influenced by local specialist and hospital practice. If local practice and research evidence conflicted, the GPs would discuss the matter with colleagues and local specialists. None of the GPs stated that they would like to acquire more critical appraisal skills to assess the evidence themselves.
(2) Attitudes to using evidence-based medicine within the context of general practice (see Table 4)
Problems applying the evidence to patients in general practice. .
All the GPs agreed that there were problems applying the evidence from guidelines or other sources to their individual patients (quote 4.25.4). Many were concerned that the exclusion of certain patients from clinical trials limited generalizability. The phrases "but in real life" and "in the real world" were often repeated.
|
Many stated that, within general practice, the psychosocial and contextual issues are so important that research evidence becomes irrelevant and the explicit presentation of evidence becomes unnecessary.
Using evidence with patients. . Some of the GPs stated that they would be able to use the presentation of evidence, including levels of evidence, with their patients. Others felt patients would not be able to tolerate the uncertainty inherent in research evidence.
Evidence and art. . Although the GPs had an overall positive attitude toward evidence-based medicine, some expressed concern that it was being promoted to the exclusion of other aspects of medicine (quote 3.10.34). Many of the more academic GPs contrasted ‘the art of medicine’ with evidence-based medicine, which they perceived as science (quotes 3.18.58, 2.13.42). They stated that evidence-based medicine emphasized quantitative research and placed less emphasis on the psychosocial context of medical practice that they felt was a core part of general practice.
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Methodological considerations
This study used evidence-based guidelines to explore Australian GPs' attitudes to evidence-based medicine and the explicit presentation of evidence within guidelines. The GPs were representative of Australian GPs for age and sex. However, when compared with all Australian GPs, the GPs in this study were more likely to hold the FRACGP qualification (48 versus 33%) and less likely to have qualified overseas (15 versus 25%).15 Academic GPs were over-represented and this may have resulted in a greater emphasis in the results on the differences between general practice and other medical specialities, including the psychosocial aspects of the consultation. One may have thought that the over-representation of academic GPs would have a more positive attitude to evidence-based medicine, in particular in relation to clinical consultation and critical appraisal. Interestingly, this was not the case.
The focus group methodology was considered appropriate to identify the attitudes formed in response to medical group norms and rules of behaviour. Although the investigator who tried to ensure her own beliefs did not influence the study by using grounded theory methodology, bias is still possible. However, the data were checked for internal consistency and the results were fed back to the GPs for comment. Attempts were made to increase the reliability and validity by using systematic methods that compared and contrasted the data and identified extreme and negative cases.
While the visual analogue scale indicated support for the explicit presentation of evidence within guidelines, this method of triangulation may have lacked construct validity. It is possible that the explicit presentation of evidence is not associated with a positive attitude to other aspects of evidence-based medicine.
Attitudes to using evidence in the general practice consultation
Evidence-based medicine involves defining the questions arising from the patient encounter, tracking down, critically appraising and applying the evidence to the patient, and evaluating the outcomes.16 Despite an overall positive attitude toward evidence-based medicine, the GPs participating in this study did not raise the issue of acquiring the skills of critical appraisal. A survey of 302 English GPs also found that acquiring skills in critical appraisal for evidence-based medicine was the least favoured method of moving from opinion-based medicine to evidence-based medicine. Guidelines were the most favoured approach.9 This suggests that a move away from a critical appraisal model of evidence-based medicine towards a model based on providing evidence-based clinical summaries may be appropriate. Smith has put forward a potential list of evidence-based resources to meet the information needs of clinicians and suggested areas for further research.17
The proponents of evidence-based medicine have stated that "evidence-based medicine means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external evidence".16 For some of the GPs in this study, prior experience was considered to be of greater importance than external research evidence. Sullivan and MacNaughton have described this process of weighting of the different sources of evidence available to the GP.8 The prior beliefs of GPs appear to be important, and this suggests that recommendations to change practice should take these beliefs into account.
Although the GPs accepted that new evidence could guide their practice, they appeared to be more interested in using evidence to reassure patients and answer any queries they might have. The needs and roles of patients have not been emphasized in the evidence-based medicine literature. However, Gorman found that patients' expectations of the GP to know the answer was a significant determinant of information-seeking by GPs.18
The source was also regarded as important when considering the credibility of the evidence. This has also been found in other studies on guidelines in general practice in Australia.19 However, when faced with recommendations that conflict with their own prior beliefs, the GPs stated that they would discuss the evidence with colleagues and local hospital specialists. This suggests that it is important to ensure that sources of information considered credible by GPs should be evidence-based. Smith has reviewed the numerous studies that have shown that clinicians most frequently meet their information needs by talking with other clinicians and has suggested that the psychological support and affirmation involved in these social interactions may be important.17 Systematic reviews have also shown that interventions involving social interaction may be more effective in changing physician behaviour than those without.20,21 The external validity of research evidence for general practice was also seen as problematic.
The GPs were very concerned with the difficulties of using the evidence while taking into account the psychosocial context of a patient's problem. These concerns have been raised previously.5,7 GPs' core intervention is management of the whole person and the use of research evidence is only a small part in their complex decision-making.
The participants also perceived that the move towards evidence-based medicine was a move away from the art of medicine. Although similar statements have been made in the medical literature criticizing evidence-based medicine,7,22 the failure to reach a common definition of the ‘art of medicine' makes it impossible to examine this issue in any detail.
Dowie has recently presented a provocative argument that only a "decision analysis approach" is capable of solving these types of problems.23 However, a recent case study using decision analysis to apply evidence-based medicine in general practice described how a well-designed published decision analysis failed to take into account all the complex personal and cultural issues that were important to the GP and patient.24
|
Conclusions |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
The model proposed in Figure 1
is consistent with how the GPs in this study decide to consider and use evidence within their consultation. Although they were positive about evidence-based guidelines, they also possessed a large amount of information obtained from other sources. The need to review the evidence appears to be likely to be driven by the needs of the patient. GPs do not appear to be interested in critically appraising the lit-erature themselves. Finally, the decision about whether to use the evidence is greatly influenced by the psychosocial issues of the consultation. This model illustrates that GPs can be positive about evidence-based medicine without necessarily using it within their consultations. Ironically, the uptake of evidence-based recommendations may be better facilitated by the opinion of colleagues and local experts than published level 1 evidence (randomized controlled trials). Further research is needed to understand the meaning of evidence in general practice and to elucidate the intricacies of GPs' decision-making.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
The first author wishes to acknowledge the 27 GPs who gave up their time freely, PS Morris for reading previous drafts and the RACGP Research, Trainee and Development Scholarship for sponsoring the Masters coursework.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
1 Hooker RC. The rise and rise of evidence-based medicine. (Letter.) Lancet 1997; 349: 1329–1330.[ISI][Medline]
2 Ahmed T, Silagy C. The move towards evidence-based medicine. Med J Australia 1995; 163: 60–61.
3 Mayer J. Exploring general practitioners attitudes to evidence-based medicine using evidence-based guidelines: A focus group study. Masters Thesis, Monash University, Melbourne, 1998.
4
Sackett DL, Rosenberg W, Muir Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence-based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. Br Med J 1996; 312: 71–72.
5 Greenhalgh T, Worrall JG. From EBM to CSM: the evolution of context-sensitive medicine. J Eval Clin Pract 1997; 3: 105–108.[Medline]
6 Charlton BG. Restoring the balance: evidence-based medicine put in its place. J Eval Clin Pract 1997; 3: 83–98.[Medline]
7 Jacobson LD, Edwards AGK, Granier SK, Butler CC. Evidence-based medicine and general practice. Br J Gen Pract 1997; 47: 449–452.[ISI][Medline]
8 Sullivan FM, MacNaughton RJ. Evidence in consultations: interpreted and individualised. Lancet 1996; 348: 941–943.[ISI][Medline]
9
McColl A, Smith H, White P, Field J. General practitioners' perceptions of the route to evidence-based medicine: a questionnaire survey. Br Med J 1998; 316: 361–365.
10
Greenhalgh T. Is my practice evidence-based? Br Med J 1996; 313: 957–958.
11 Morse JM. Strategies for sampling. In Morse JM (ed.). Qualitative Nursing Research: A Contemporary Dialogue. California: Sage Publications Inc., 1991: 129–145.
12
Kitzinger J. Introducing focus groups. Br Med J 1995; 311: 299–302.
13 Crabtree BE, Millar WL. Doing Qualitative Research: Research Methods for Primary Care. California: Sage Publications Inc., 1992: 1–276.
14 Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. California: Sage Publications Inc., 1990: 7–259.
15 Australian Bureau of Statistics. Private Medical Practitioners: National Survey 1994–1995. Canberra: Commonwealth Government of Australia, 1996.
16 Sackett DL, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. New York: Churchill and Livingstone, 1997.
17
Smith R. What clinical information do doctors need? Br Med J 1996; 313: 1062–1068.
18
Gorman P, Helfand M. Information seeking in primary care: how physicians choose which clinical questions to pursue and which to leave unanswered. Med Decis Making 1995; 15: 113–119.
19 Silagy C, Weller D, Moulding N, Fahy N, Foong LH, Yeoh J. A focus group to explore general practitioners attitudes to guidelines and explore possible barriers existing to, and ways in which to facilitate the uptake of guidelines by these general practitioners. 1997: 82–87. Flinders University. Report to the Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services: A systematic review of the current status of evidence-based medicine and its potential application to Australian general practice.
20 Thomson MA, Oxman AD, Davis DA, Haynes RB, Freemantle N, Harvey EL. Outreach visits to improve health professional practice and healthcare outcomes. In Bero L, Grilli R, Grimshaw J, Oxman A (eds). Collaboration on Effective Professional Practice Module of The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (updated 01 December 1997). Available in The Cochrane Library (database on disk and CD-ROM). Oxford: Update Software. Updated quarterly, 1998.
21 Freemantle N, Harvey EL, Wolf F, Grimshaw JM, Grilli R, Bero LA. Printed educational materials to improve the behaviour of healthcare professionals and patient outcomes. In Bero L, Grilli R, Grimshaw J, Oxman A (eds). Collaboration on Effective Professional Practice Module of The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (updated 01 December 1997). Available in The Cochrane Library (database on disk and CD-ROM). Oxford: Update Software. Updated quarterly, 1998.
22 Charlton BG. Balancing science and art in primary care research: past and present. Br J Gen Pract 1995; 45: 639–640.[ISI][Medline]
23 Dowie J. Evidence-based, cost-effective and preference-driven medicine: decision analysis based medical decision-making is the prerequisite. J Health Serv Res Policy 1996; 1: 104–113.[Medline]
24 Chen J. Evidence-based medicine: can it really be of use to general practitioners? Br J Gen Pract 1997; 47: 762–763.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||