To neutrally offer or strongly recommend? General practitioners' perspectives on screening for gestational diabetes according to the national guideline in Norway.

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-15 DOI:10.1080/02813432.2024.2378204
Ingeborg Forthun, Kathy Ainul Møen, Stefán Hjörleifsson
{"title":"To neutrally offer or strongly recommend? General practitioners' perspectives on screening for gestational diabetes according to the national guideline in Norway.","authors":"Ingeborg Forthun, Kathy Ainul Møen, Stefán Hjörleifsson","doi":"10.1080/02813432.2024.2378204","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To explore general practitioners' experiences and reflections on how the current Norwegian guideline for screening for gestational diabetes affects their clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A qualitive study in which data were collected through semi-structured focus group interviews and analyzed thematically.</p><p><strong>Setting and subjects: </strong>Five focus groups conducted in 2020 among GPs in Norway; three interviews took place face-to-face and two were held digitally. The total number of participants was 31.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>GPs acknowledged the potential benefits of more extensive screening, but had concerns about the medicalization of pregnancy, stating that some women experienced considerable anxiety. The GPs expressed doubts about the guideline's evidence base but differed in how they interpreted what the guideline was asking them to do. Some offered eligible women the opportunity to be screened, while other set up a screening appointment without consulting the women first. For some, fear of incrimination made them recommend screening without being convinced that it was the right thing for the patient.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>It is unclear whether the guideline for gestational diabetes requires GPs to recommend screening to pregnant women or if they should provide neutral information about the availability of screening. This ambiguity should be addressed, and the guideline evaluated against the core principles of general practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11552295/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02813432.2024.2378204","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To explore general practitioners' experiences and reflections on how the current Norwegian guideline for screening for gestational diabetes affects their clinical practice.

Design: A qualitive study in which data were collected through semi-structured focus group interviews and analyzed thematically.

Setting and subjects: Five focus groups conducted in 2020 among GPs in Norway; three interviews took place face-to-face and two were held digitally. The total number of participants was 31.

Results: GPs acknowledged the potential benefits of more extensive screening, but had concerns about the medicalization of pregnancy, stating that some women experienced considerable anxiety. The GPs expressed doubts about the guideline's evidence base but differed in how they interpreted what the guideline was asking them to do. Some offered eligible women the opportunity to be screened, while other set up a screening appointment without consulting the women first. For some, fear of incrimination made them recommend screening without being convinced that it was the right thing for the patient.

Conclusions: It is unclear whether the guideline for gestational diabetes requires GPs to recommend screening to pregnant women or if they should provide neutral information about the availability of screening. This ambiguity should be addressed, and the guideline evaluated against the core principles of general practice.

中立建议还是强烈建议?全科医生根据挪威国家指南对妊娠糖尿病筛查的看法。
目的探讨全科医生的经验和反思,了解挪威现行的妊娠糖尿病筛查指南如何影响他们的临床实践:一项定性研究,通过半结构化焦点小组访谈收集数据,并进行专题分析:2020年在挪威的全科医生中开展了五次焦点小组访谈;其中三次访谈是面对面进行的,两次是通过数字方式进行的。参与者总数为 31 人:结果:全科医生承认更广泛筛查的潜在益处,但对妊娠医学化表示担忧,并指出一些妇女经历了相当程度的焦虑。全科医生对指南的证据基础表示怀疑,但在如何理解指南要求他们做的事情上存在分歧。一些全科医生向符合条件的妇女提供了接受筛查的机会,而另一些全科医生则在没有事先咨询妇女的情况下就安排了筛查预约。对一些人来说,由于害怕受到指责,他们在没有确信筛查对病人来说是正确的事情的情况下就建议进行筛查:结论:目前尚不清楚妊娠糖尿病指南是否要求全科医生向孕妇推荐筛查,还是全科医生应提供有关筛查的中立信息。应解决这一含糊不清的问题,并根据全科医生的核心原则对指南进行评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信