nach oben

Erschienen in:

Open Access 27.01.2022 | Original Research

Prospective Observational Study on the Prevalence and Diagnostic Value of General Practitioners’ Gut Feelings for Cancer and Serious Diseases

verfasst von: Bernardino Oliva-Fanlo, MD, Sebastià March, MPH, Cristina Gadea-Ruiz, MD, Erik Stolper, PhD, Magdalena Esteva, PhD, On behalf of the CORap group

Erschienen in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Ausgabe 15/2022

Abstract

Background

General practitioners (GPs) have recognized the presence of gut feelings in their diagnostic process. However, little is known about the frequency or determinants of gut feelings or the diagnostic value of gut feelings for cancer and other serious diseases.

Objective

To assess the prevalence of gut feelings in general practice, examine their determinants and impact on patient management, and measure their diagnostic value for cancer and other serious diseases.

Design

This prospective observational study was performed using the Gut Feelings Questionnaire (GFQ).

Participants

Participants included 155 GPs and 1487 of their patients, from four Spanish provinces.

Main Measures

Sociodemographic data from patients and GPs; the reasoning style of GPs; the characteristics of the consultation; the presence and kind of gut feeling; the patient’s subsequent contacts with the health system; and new cancer and serious disease diagnoses reported at 2 and 6 months post-consultation.

Key Results

GPs experienced a gut feeling during 97% of the consultations: a sense of reassurance in 75% of consultations and a sense of alarm in 22% of consultations. A sense of alarm was felt at higher frequency given an older patient, the presence of at least one cancer-associated symptom, or a non-urban setting. GPs took diagnostic action more frequently after a sense of alarm. After 2 months, the sense of alarm had a sensitivity of 59% for cancer and other serious diseases (95% CI 47–71), a specificity of 79% (95% CI 77–82), a positive predictive value of 12% (95% CI 9–16), and a negative predictive value of 98% (95% CI 86–98).

Conclusions

Gut feelings are consistently present in primary care medicine, and they play a substantial role in a GP’s clinical reasoning and timely diagnosis of serious disease. The sense of alarm must be taken seriously and used to support diagnostic evaluation in patients with a new reason for encounter.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

General practitioner

Gut feeling

GFQ

Gut Feelings Questionnaire

REI

Rational Emotional Inventory

NFC

Need for cognition

Faith in intuition

EKG

Electrocardiogram

Odds ratio

Confidence interval

Likelihood ratio

PPV

Positive predictive value

NPV

Negative predictive value

Standard deviation

BACKGROUND

Uncertainty around diagnosis is one of the biggest challenges that a clinician faces when caring for a patient. This is particularly relevant for general practitioners (GPs)¹, whose work is associated with one of the highest perceptions of uncertainty². GPs are confronted with an immense range of symptoms, and in some cases a seemingly minor symptom can indicate a serious diagnosis³. For example, most lower-back pain disappears within a year; however, in 1 of 350 patients with backache, the pain will be the guiding sign for a serious diagnosis⁴. This uncertainty forces GPs to optimize the use of their analytical and non-analytical reasoning tools. In this sense, the use of intuition in medicine has long been recognized as part of the art of medicine and even as representing tacit knowledge essential to good practice^5,6. Intuitive sensations, called “gut feelings,” have been described as a “useful light that goes on suddenly to announce that there is something unusual.”⁷ GPs have been reported to recognize the existence of gut feelings and consider them a useful tool for decision-making^8,9, and even a separate track in their clinical reasoning¹⁰.There are two kinds of gut feelings: a sense of alarm that leads a GP to worry about a patient’s health status even if they have not yet found any specific indication; and a sense of reassurance that leads a GP to feel confident about the patient’s management and outcome even though they may not be certain about the diagnosis, a sense that everything fits in⁸.

There are many studies regarding the use of gut feelings by GPs, hospital specialists, and nurses^9,11‐17. GPs reported using their gut feelings in suspecting cancer^9,17‐20and other serious diseases^21,22. In Denmark and the UK, the GPs’ sense of alarm has been accepted as a valid reason for referring a patient to specific pathways of cancer diagnosis^23,24. It has been suggested that gut feelings’ diagnostic values are routine GP’s consultations, where serious diseases and cancer have a low prevalence²⁵. However, few studies have evaluated the frequency and diagnostic value of gut feelings in primary care consultations²⁰. Hjertholm et al. found that the suspicion of cancer and serious disease in primary care consultations had a prevalence of 5.7% and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 9.8%²⁶. Donker et al. observed a PPV of 35% for cancer-related gut feelings, and reported that this value increased according to the ages of the patient and the doctor¹². In order to objectively measure gut feelings, a Gut Feeling Questionnaire (GFQ) was created and validated in a Dutch context²²; since then, it has been made available in seven languages^27,28. The GFQ determines whether a gut feeling has arisen during a consultation. In a study using the GFQ, Barais et al. found that GPs had a gut feeling in 99.16% of consultations concerning patients with dyspnea or chest pain, corresponding to a sense of alarm in 35% of these cases and a sense of reassurance in 65% of the cases. Among patients with dyspnea or chest pain, the presence of a sense of alarm increased the probability of a life-threatening disease from 20 to 35%, while the presence of a sense of reassurance decreased the probability to 12%¹³.

Non-analytical, intuitive reasoning is a substantial part of the diagnostic process; it induces and guides analytical reasoning and deliberate action. However, the prevalence, diagnostic value, and determinants of gut feelings are not yet fully known. More knowledge of these aspects might lead to a better understanding of the consultation process and help practitioners undertake timely diagnostic evaluation and avoid errors.

This study aimed to assess the prevalence and determinants of gut feelings in general practice, the subsequent management of patients in light of the kind of gut feeling experienced by the GP, and the diagnostic value of gut feelings for cancer and other serious diseases.

METHODS

In this prospective observational study, we used the Spanish and Catalan versions of the GFQ. The work was carried out in primary care centers of four Spanish provinces (Balearic Islands, Madrid, Barcelona, and Lugo) during 2019–2020. Participants were GPs and their patients. The protocol of the study has already been published²⁹.

Participants

GPs were invited to participate during workshops held in the health centers. Those who accepted the invitation were instructed on data gathering. During at least one working day, GPs included consecutive patients with at least one new reason for consultation. Exclusion criteria were consultations with non-residents, terminally ill patients, or patients younger than 18 years old, and consultations for bureaucratic reasons. At the end of each consultation (index consultation), patients were given oral and written information about the study and signed an informed consent document.

Measurements

We collected sociodemographic and practice data on the participating GPs (age, sex, training tasks, rural/non-rural health center, and years with the same list of patients). We used a 4-item Likert scale validated by Martínez-Cañabate et al.³⁰ in her PhD thesis. Each item has 4 possible answers, from completely disagree to completely agree. The scale assesses whether the professional carries out a practice more oriented to the biological (lower scores) or psychosocial (higher scores) sphere^31,32. GPs completed the Rational-Experiential Inventory (REI)³³. This Likert scale has 40 items and has been validated in Spanish population. Each item has 5 possible answers, from completely disagree to completely agree. The REI measures rational and experiential thinking styles and includes subscales of self-reported ability and engagement with each thinking style³⁴.

After each index consultation, GPs recorded sociodemographic data obtained from the patient and how long they had been on the doctor’s list. Data about the visit were recorded, such as the type and consultation duration (longer or shorter than 6 min), the language used, and the presence of cancer-associated symptom(s)^35‐38(Table 1). Finally, the GP completed a printed Spanish or Catalan version of the 11-item GFQ^9,28,39. Item 1 (repeated at the end as item 11) assesses whether the patient’s case elicited a gut feeling in the consultation. Items 2–6 are rated using a 5-point Likert scale that ranges from completely disagree to completely agree. Item 2 concerns the sense of reassurance and items 3–6 relate to the sense of alarm. A sense of alarm is considered present when the answer to item 1 or 11 indicates a sense of alarm, or when the answer to item 1 or 11 is “not applicable” and at least one of the scores of items 3–6 is higher than 3. A sense of reassurance is considered present when the answer to item 1 or 11 indicates a sense of reassurance or when the answer for item 1 or 11 is “not applicable” and the score for item 2 is higher than 3. A gut feeling is considered to be absent when the answers for items 1 and 11 are both “not applicable,” none of the scores for items 3–6 is higher than 3/4, and the score for item 2 is lower than 4/5.

Table 1

Signs and Symptoms Associated with a Higher Predictive Value for Cancer^19,20,28,29

- Unintentional weight loss

- Anemia

- Anorexia

- Asthenia

- Altered bowel habits:

○ Diarrhea

○ Constipation

- Persistent dyspepsia

- Dysphagia

- Cough

- Dysphonia

- Lower urinary tract symptoms

- Unusual bleeding:

○ Hemoptysis

○ Hematuria

○ Rectal bleeding

○ Vaginal postmenopausal bleeding

- Breast lump

- Abdominal mass

- Unusual pain

Two months and 6 months after the index consultation, we reviewed primary care and hospital clinical records to collect new diagnoses of cancer (except non-melanoma skin cancer) and other serious diseases among the participating patients. Recurrence of cancer in patients considered disease-free at the time of the index consultation was regarded as a new diagnosis. Beginning with the list of serious diseases published by Hjertholm et al.²⁶, two researchers independently judged whether a newly diagnosed disease was “serious” or not. When there was disagreement, a third researcher made the final decision. Six months after the index consultation, we also recorded patient contacts with health care services.

Statistical Analysis

We performed a descriptive analysis of all selected variables to describe sample characteristics and the prevalence of gut feelings. A bivariate analysis was carried out, in which the presence of a sense of reassurance or alarm was compared with the characteristics of the GP, patient, and consultation. We used the chi-square test for categorical variables, and Student’s T-test for continuous variables. OR and 95% CI were calculated. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was done to assess the independent relationships between the variables and the kind of gut feeling. Variables with p≤ 0.20 were introduced in the model⁴⁰. We assessed changes in the coefficients at each step to detect confusion, and tested interactions. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPVs, NPVs), and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+, LR−) were calculated for the sense of alarm and the sense of reassurance. We assumed that the sense of alarm aims to identify patients with high probability for a serious outcome, while the sense of reassurance aims to identify patients with low probability for a serious outcome. Logistic multivariate analysis was also used to calculate the risk of serious disease depending on the type of gut feeling, adjusted for patient age, sex, visit type, visit duration, and cancer-related symptom(s). We assessed goodness of fit for every model with the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. Analysis was done with SPSS.v.25.

RESULTS

We invited 272 GPs; of them, 155 participated. The GPs reported on 1487 patients (63.2% female) over 328 working days (see flowchart in Figure 1). Most of the patients were Spanish-born and lived in urban environments; their mean age was 51.9 years. Nearly six of 10 patients presented at least one cancer-associated symptom. The characteristics of the GPs, patients, and consultations are described in Table 2.

Table 2

Characteristics of General Practitioners, Patients, and Index Consultations

General practitioners		N (%)
Sex	Female Male	109 (70.3) 46 (29.6)
Language	Spanish Catalan Other	112 (72.2) 42 (27.1% 1 (0.6)
Environment	Urban Extra-urban	134 (86.4) 21 (13.5)
GP trainer	Yes No	63 (40.6) 92 (59.3)
Age, mean (SD)		46.1 (9.67)
Years same list, mean (SD)		7.8 (7.28)
Working days included, mean (SD)		2.1 (1.25)
Patients included by each GP, mean (SD)		9.5 (5.37)
NFC engagement, mean (SD)		3.6 (0.51)
NFC ability, mean (SD)		3.5 (0.4)
FI engagement, mean (SD)		3.2 (0.4)
FI ability, mean, (SD)		3.3(0.5)
Martínez-Cañabate, mean (SD)		9.7 (2.4)
Patients		N(%)
Sex	Female Male Unknown	911 (61.2) 530 (35.6) 46 (3.0)
Age, mean (SD)		51.9 (19.2)
Country of origin	Spain Other Unknown	1096 (75.1) 362 (24.8) 29
Patient language	Spanish Catalan Other Unknown	1118 (75.4) 237 (16.0) 126 (8.5) 6
Environment	Urban Extra-urban	1268 (85.2) 219 (14.7)
Prior knowledge	Yes No	1056 (74.4) 363 (25.6)
Number years of GP-patient prior knowledge, mean (SD)		4.78 (5.7)
Symptoms of possible cancer	No ≥1	595 (40.0) 892 (59.9)
Index consultations		N%
Same language patient-GP during consultation	Yes No Unknown	1086 (74.2) 387 (25.7) 14
Same sex patient-GP	Yes No Unknown	778 (55.8) 611 (44.1) 98
Length of consultation >6 min	Yes No Unknown	991 (70.1) 421 (29.8) 75
Gut feeling	Sense of reassurance Sense of alarm Inconclusive	1120 (75.3) 324 (21.7) 43 (2.8)
Type of visit	Scheduled Non-scheduled	1145 (77.0) 342 (23.0)
Patients visited, mean (SD)		26.44 (8.04)

GP general practitioner, SD standard deviation, NFC need for cognition, FI faith in intuition

Prevalence of Gut Feelings

GPs experienced a gut feeling during 97.1% of the consultations: a sense of reassurance was recorded in 1120 consultations (75.3%) and a sense of alarm was recorded in 324 consultations (21.7%). In 43 consultations, the GFQ did not determine a gut feeling. These cases were excluded from the analysis. The GPs, patients, and consultations characteristics are categorized by the type of GF present in Table 3.

Table 3

Relationship of General Practitioners, Patients and Consultation Characteristics, and Type of Gut Feeling

Variables	Global N (%)	SA N (%)	SR N (%)	OR SA/SR (CI 95%) (non-adjusted)	P	OR SA/SR (CI 95%) (adjusted model)	P
Total	1444	324 (22.4)	1120 (77.6)			–
GP characteristics
Sex (GP)
Female	1005 (69.6)	237 (23.6)	768 (76.4)	1
Male	439 (30.4)	87 (19.8)	352 (80.2)	0.80 (0.6–1.06)	0.11	–	–
Environment
Non-urban	216 (14.9)	68 (31.4)	148 (68.5)	1		1
Urban	1228 (85.04)	256 (20.8)	972 (79.1)	0.50 (0.40– 0.70)	0.001	1.57 (1.09–2.25)	0.015
GP trainer
Yes	606 (41.9)	146 (24.0)	460 (75.9)	1
No	838 (58.0)	178 (21.2)	660 (78.7)	0.85 (0.60–1.10)	0.20	–	–
Age (GP)
Mean (SD)	46.0 (9.6)	46.43 (9.8)	46.03 (9.5)	1.04 (0.99–1.01)	0.51	–	–
Years same list
Mean (SD)	7.95 (7.36)	7.74 (6.79)	8.09 (7.56)	0.99 (0.97–1.01)	0.45	–	–
GP’s NFC engagement
Mean (SD)	3.6 (0.48	3.7 (0.4)	3.6 (0.4)	1.58 (1.21–2.06)	0.001	1.68 (1.25–2.27)	0.001
GP’s NFC ability
Mean (SD)	3.5 (0.4)	3.5 (0.4)	3.5 (0.4)	1.18 (0.88–1.57)	0.25	–	–
GP’s FI engagement
Mean (SD)	3.2 (0.4)	3.3 (0.4)	3.2 (0.4)	1.13 (0.85–1.51)	0.37	–	–
GP’s FI ability
Mean (SD)	3.4 (0.7)	3.4 (0.6)	3.4 (0.8)	0.98 (0.83–1.16)	0.88	–	–
Martínez-Cañabate Scale
Mean (SD)	9.4 (2.4)	9.3 (2.4)	9.4 (2.4)	0.98 (0.93–1.03)	0.50	–	–
Patient characteristics
Sex (patient)
Female	887 (63.4)	199 (22.4)	688 (77.6)	1
Male	512 (36.6)	111 (21.7)	401 (78.3)	0.9 (0.7–1.2)	0.74	–	–
Age (patient)
Mean (SD)	51.9 (19.2)	55.3 (19.6)	51.0 (19.0)	1.01 (1.005–1.018)	0.001	1.01 (1.03–1.02)	0.004
Country of origin
Spain	1069 (75.5)	238 (22.3)	831 (77.7)	1
Other	347 (24.5)	77 (22.2)	270 (77.8)	0.9 (0.7–1.3)	0.97	–	–
Prior knowledge
No	363 (25.6)	81 (22.3)	282 (77.7)	1
Yes	1056 (74.4)	235 (22.3)	821 (77.7)	1.003 (0.7–1.3)	0.98	–	–
Years of prior knowledge
Mean (SD)	4.7 (5.7)	4.5 (5.3)	4.9 (5.9)	0.99 (0.96–1.01)	0.38	–	–
Cancer=related symptoms
No	582 (40.3)	94 (16.2)	488 (83.8)	1		1
≥1	862 (59.7)	230 (26.7)	632 (73.3)	1.8 (1.4–2.4)	<0.001	1.83 (1.36–2.46)	<0.001
Consultation characteristics
Language used (GPs)
No	374 (26.2)	112 (29.9)	262 (70.1)	1		1
Yes	1056 (73.8)	208 (19.7)	848 (80.3)	0.5 (0.4–0.7)	<0.001	1.62 (1.20–2.18)	<0.001
Same sex patient-GP
No	620 (44.3)	137 (22.1)	483 (77.9)	1
Yes	778 (55.7)	173 (22.2)	605 (77.8)	1.01 (0.7–1.3)	0.95	–	–
Length of consultation >6’
No	410 (29.9)	42 (10.2)	368 (89.8)	1		1
Yes	959 (70.1)	260 (27.1)	699 (72.9)	3.2 (2.2–4.6)	<0.001	2.76 (1.92–3.97)	<0.001
Type of visit
Scheduled	1111 (76.9)	252 (22.7)	859 (77.3)	1
Rest of visits	333 (23.1)	72 (21.6)	261 (78.4)	0.9 (0.6–1.2)	0.68	–	–
Patients visited
Mean (SD)	26.4 (8.05)	25.4 (8.2)	26.7 (7.8)	0.97 (0.96–0.99)	0.01	–	–

GPs general practitioners, SA sense of alarm, SR sense of reassurance, No GF no gut feelings detected, CI confidence interval, SD standard deviation

R²Nagelkerke= 0.114; Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness of fit test = 0.114

We found no difference in the frequency of reassurance or alarm regarding most of the determinants studied. The sense of alarm was more prevalent, and the sense of reassurance was less prevalent under the following conditions: when GPs’ NFC engagement scores (rational reasoning) were higher; in consultations with older patients; when a patient presented at least one cancer-associated symptom; in non-urban areas; or when the language used during the consultation was not the GP’s native language. Regarding the features of the consultations, the prevalence for a sense of alarm was higher in consultations that lasted longer than 6 min or with fewer patients seen that day. Our multivariate analysis (see Table 3) confirmed the above-described results found in the bivariate analysis, except for the number of patients visited in the same day.

Actions During Follow-up

Table 4 shows the actions taken by GPs during the 6 months after the index consultation, categorized by the kind of gut feeling. Patients visited their GP more frequently after GPs experienced a sense of alarm than a sense of reassurance. GPs more frequently ordered laboratory tests, radiological investigations, and primary care procedures after experiencing a sense of alarm and referred more frequently to both outpatient services and the emergency department. There was no difference in patients’ sick leave based on the type of feeling experienced by the GP.

Table 4

Actions Taken During the Subsequent 6 months

	SA N=324	SR N=1120	P
Patients visiting a GP (%) Mean (SD)	310 (95.7) 4.8 (4.1)	960 (85.7) 3.56 (3.6)	<0.001 <0.001
Patients with laboratory tests (%) Mean (SD)	200 (61.7) 0.8 (0.9)	463 (41.3%) 0.5 (0.7)	<0.001 <0.001
Patients with radiology tests (%) Mean (SD)	99 (30.6) 0.3 (0.6)	226 (20.2) 0.19 (0.4)	<0.001 <0.001
Patients referred to outpatients services (%) Mean (SD)	169 (52.2) 0.65 (0.7)	361 (32.2) 0.3 (0.6)	<0.001 <0.001
Patients referred to ED (%) Mean (SD)	82 (25.3) 0.2 (0.4)	115 (10.3) 0.08 (0.3)	<0.001 <0.001
Patients with primary care procedures (%) Mean (SD)	128 (39.5) 0.6 (1.1)	317 (28.3) 0.4 (1.01)	<0.001 0.002
Patients with sick leaves (%) Mean (SD)	148 (43.8) 0.2 (0.5)	452 (40.4) 0.2 (0.6)	0.26 0.44

SA sense of alarm, SR sense of reassurance, No GF no gut feelings detected, CI confidence interval, SD standard deviation

Diagnostic Value

The presence of a diagnosis of cancer or serious disease could be evaluated in 1385 patients (see Figure 1). At 2 months after the index consultation, 64 patients (4.6%) had been newly diagnosed with cancer or another serious disease. At 6 months, a total of 116 patients had been newly diagnosed with a serious disease (8.3%; nine with cancer).

Diagnostic values are shown in Table 5. After 2 months, the sense of alarm for cancer or a serious disease had a sensitivity of 59.3%, specificity of 79.4%, a PPV of 12.2%, an NPV of 97.5%; an LR+ of 2.8, and an LR− of 0.5. After 6 months, most of these figures were similar for the sense of alarm, except that the PPV was 18.3% and the NPV was 94.5%.

Table 5

Diagnostic Value Parameters of Gut Feelings for Cancer and Serious Disease and Risk of Cancer and Serious Disease Depending on the Type of Gut Feeling (N=1385)

Time after consultation	Sensitivity % (95% CI)	Specificity % (95% CI)	PPV % (95% CI)	NPV % (95% CI)	LR+ (95% CI)	LR- (95% CI)	Accuracy (95% CI)	Non-adjusted OR (95% CI)	Adjusted OR (95% CI)
2 months after SA	59.3 (47.1–70.5)	79.4 (77.1–81.5)	12.2 (9.06–16.3)	97.5 (86.4–98.3)	2.8 (2.7–3.0)	0.5 (0.4–0.5)	78.4 (76.2–80.5)	5.63 (3.36–9.44)	5.3* (3.09–9.08)
6 months after SA	49.14 (40.2–58.1)	80.1 (77.7–82.1)	18.3 (14.4–23.1)	94.5 (92.9–95.7)	2.4 (2.3–2.5)	0.6 (0.61–0.66)	77.4 (75.2–79.6)	3.88 (2.62–5.72)	3.67** (2.42–5.56)
2 months after SR	79.4 (77.1–81.5)	59.3 (47.1–70.5)	97.5 (6.4–98.3)	12.2 (9.06–16.3)	1.9 (1.8–2.1)	0.3 (0.33–0.36)	78.4 (76.2–80.5)	0.17 (0.1–0.29)	0.19*** (0.1–0.33)
6 months after SR	80.1 (77.7–82.1)	49.14 (40.2–58.1)	94.5 (92.9–95.7)	18.3 (14.4–23.1)	1.57 (1.5–1.6)	0.4 (0.390.42)	77.4 (75.2–79.6)	0.25 (0.17–0.38)	0.27**** (0.17–0.41)

PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value, LR+ positive likelihood ratio, LR− negative likelihood ratio

*Hosmer-Lemeshow test=0.22; **Hosmer-Lemeshow test=0.53; ***Hosmer-Lemeshow test=0.19; ****Hosmer-Lemeshow test=0.79

The adjusted OR for a serious diagnosis after 2 months was 5.3 after a sense of alarm and 0.19 after a sense of reassurance. Six months after the index consultation, the adjusted OR was 3.6 after a sense of alarm and 0.2 after a sense of reassurance.

DISCUSSION

Summary of Findings

This is the first study seeking to estimate the prevalence and diagnostic value of gut feelings in the consultations of GPs. Our study showed that GPs had a gut feeling almost every time they consulted with a patient for a new reason; these feelings were a sense of reassurance approximately 75% of the time. A more frequent sense of alarm was associated with various determinants, such as the GP being more engaged with analytical reasoning, the patient’s age, the practice being located in a non-urban area, the presence of at least one cancer-associated symptom, and incongruence in the native languages of the patient and GP. We also observed that the presence of a sense of alarm increased the number of tests performed and the referrals to secondary care for further investigation. The sense of alarm experienced by the GP increased the possibility that the patient would receive a new diagnosis of cancer or another serious disease by 2 months (adjusted OR 5.3) and 6 months (adjusted OR 3.6) after the initial consultation. This possibility decreased after the GP’s perception of a sense of reassurance, with an adjusted OR of 0.19 at 2 months and 0.27 at 6 months. The presence of a sense of alarm increased the likelihood of the diagnosis of a cancer or a serious disease at 2 months from the consultation from 4.6 to 12.3% and from 8.4 to 18.4% at 6 months, while the presence of a sense of reassurance decreased these likelihoods to 2.4% and 5.9%, respectively.

Strengths and Limitations

The GFQ is a validated measure for determining gut feelings. Our prospective design enabled us to obtain accurate and reliable results. The use of primary care and hospital electronic clinical records prevented loss of information, such as unrecorded diagnoses.

We did not reach the estimated sample size of consultations²⁹, as 43% of the GPs decided not to participate. Therefore, our data lacked the power needed for us to draw conclusions about the diagnostic value of GFs related exclusively to cancer. The distributions of participant GPs by age, sex, and non-urban vs. urban environment were essentially the same as those previously observed among Spanish GPs^41,42.

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic during the last months of data collection might have influenced our results. All the index consultations occurred prior to the pandemic, but the follow-up periods for 1/3 of the cases ended after the pandemic started. Thus, although COVID-19 was not a diagnostic possibility during the index consultation, patients were exposed to the new disease during the follow-up period. Moreover, the Spanish National Health System stopped all non-urgent activity during the first months of the pandemic, probably delaying some cancer diagnoses^43,44. We considered COVID-19 to be a serious disease when patients suffered complications, needed hospitalization, or died. We found 36 confirmed COVID-19 cases among participants, including 35 mild cases and 1 with pneumonia. Otherwise, the prevalence of cancer and the other serious diseases was comparable between the present study and previous relevant reports²⁶.

Comparison with Existing Literature

The consistent appearance of gut feelings during the consultations indicates that GPs habitually use intuitive reasoning. The intuitive decision-making system is fast, automatic, effortless, and difficult to control^45,46. In primary care health centers, which are characterized by massive numbers of consultations and strict time constraints, the contribution of “intuition” to the decision-making process is obvious. The high prevalence of gut feelings involving a sense of reassurance is in line with the low probability of serious disease in primary care, as many complaints are innocent and temporary indispositions⁴⁷.

Studies measuring gut feelings with non-validated tools found a much lower prevalence of the sense of alarm^26,37,48. The Hawthorne effect⁴⁹, which is how the awareness of being studied may impact the behavior of the study subjects⁵⁰, should be considered a possible source of bias. Although the GPs did not know if their answers to the GFQ would reflect a sense of alarm or a sense of reassurance, they might have changed their behavior and been more suspicious when interpreting the patient’s symptoms during their participation in the study, potentially leading to an overestimation of the sense of alarm.

If the high prevalence of the sense of alarm found in our study using the GFQ was an overestimation, then it had inevitably influenced the predictive value. Barais et al.¹³ used the GFQ among French GPs in patients consulting for dyspnea or chest pain; the authors observed that gut feelings were present in 99.15% of consultations, with 35% of them representing a sense of alarm and 65% representing a sense of reassurance. The higher prevalence of a sense of alarm, compared to that found our study, can be easily explained because these authors selected patients with dyspnea and chest pain, who have a much higher risk of serious outcome. We assume that the Hawthorne effect is at least partially responsible for our finding that a high proportion of the gut feelings experienced by GPs corresponded to a sense of alarm. To mitigate this effect, several strategies have been proposed that should be considered in future research on gut feelings, such as assuring the participants that the objective of the study is to identify gut feelings without judging the clinician’s performance, triangulating the collection of information, and collecting information over long periods of time while discarding the first set of data collected⁵¹. Another less probable explanation could be that case vignettes from real practice were used to validate the GFQ and perhaps the cut-off values need to be refined in the context of real consultations³⁹.

Our results showed that the kind of gut feelings was influenced by some characteristics of the GPs, patients, and/or of the consultations. The style of reasoning (rational or intuitive) did not appear to generally affect the occurrence of gut feelings. However, somewhat to our surprise, GPs prone to rational reasoning had more frequent experiences of a sense of alarm. The Spanish non-urban population is older than the urban population, which could explain the higher prevalence of GPs having a sense of alarm in non-urban areas⁴². The presence of at least one cancer-associated symptom increased the prevalence of a sense of alarm, which is consistent with previous published evidence^36,37. The sense of alarm may activate the diagnostic process by stimulating a GP to formulate and weigh working hypotheses involving a serious outcome¹¹ that is, the sense of alarm was associated with a longer consultation.

Doctors of different specialties have acknowledged the presence of gut feelings in their diagnostic process^14,15,21, although they considered that it is more frequent and appropriate among GPs because of the greater number of diagnostic possibilities a GP faces after a patient. Intuition played a greater role and was more widely accepted in specialties like general internal medicine, pediatrics, and psychiatry¹⁵. These specialties, along with family medicine, are the ones where physicians have a higher perception of uncertainty in their daily work².

We found an increasing number of GP visits, tests, and referrals for patients with whom the GP experienced a sense of alarm. Our results are comparable with those observed by Hjertholm et al.²⁶, where the number of GP consultations, primary-care specialist, and diagnostic imaging increased in the 2-month period after a consultation when the GP had a suspicion of serious disease, while the use of hospital services (inpatient and outpatient increased both 2 and 6 months after). These findings could be expected, as this gut feeling induces the diagnostic process of gathering more data.

Regarding the diagnostic value of gut feelings, other authors also observed increased probabilities of serious disease after a sense of alarm. Hjertholm et al.²⁶ found that the risk of a diagnosis of cancer or another serious disease was 2.98 higher 2 months after the index consultation in the case of an sense of alarm. Ingeman et al.⁵² found that 24% of patients with whom the GP felt a gut feeling of cancer were finally diagnosed with cancer. A meta-analysis on the diagnostic utility of gut feelings in diagnosing cancer in primary care showed that a gut feeling associated with cancer increased the odds of cancer four times²⁰. These results justified the decision made in Denmark and the UK to accept the GPs’ gut feeling as a valid reason for referring a patient to specific pathways of cancer diagnosis^23,24.

The value of LR+ of a sense of reassurance (1.95) implies that the pretest probability of serious disease decreases from 8.4 to 5.5%, and thus did not contribute greatly to ruling out cancer or a serious disease, so still the GP has to consider several hypotheses before discarding a serious diagnosis. The LR+ of a sense of alarm (2.8) modified the pretest probability for cancer or serious disease from 8.4 to 18.4%. As proposed by Barais⁵¹, given the very low prevalence of serious diseases, LR+ values between 2 and 5 could be of interest since they increase the probability of serious disease by 15–30%. Therefore, a sense of alarm should be taken seriously in general practice, and clinicians should follow up patients with an analytical reasoning track.

Conclusions

The results of our study showed that gut feelings are substantially present in primary care. Gut feelings, especially a sense of alarm, contribute valuably to the diagnostic process and must be taken seriously when seeing patients with a new reason for encounter, which should lead to a diagnostic review. A gut feeling is a substantial part of clinical reasoning and supports GPs in timely diagnosing cancer or other serious diseases. Rational reasoning-prone GPs did not differ from their intuitive reasoning-prone colleagues with respect to experiencing gut feelings. Medical students must be trained in becoming aware of their own gut feelings and how to deal with them. Further research should focus on the significance of gut feelings related to specific symptoms and signs, and on the factors that could increase the prognostic and diagnostic value of GPs’ gut feelings.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Jeroni Fiol Renaudin for his help with the administrative tasks associated with the research. The authors also thank the members of the Majorcan Primary Care Research Department and the COGITA group (www.gutfeelings.eu) for their helpful advice on the methods used in this study. The following are members of the CORap group: Iris Alarcón Belmonte, CAP Sant Joan, Vilanova i la Geltrú; Noemí Amorós Parramón, CAP Guineueta, Barcelona; Elena Artal Travería, CAP Encants, Barcelona; Apol·lònia Cifre Socías, CS Platja de Palma-Ca’n Pastilla, Palma; Alberto Cotillas Rodero, CS San Blas, Parla; Cristina Ferrer Rubio, CS O Vicedo, O Vicedo; Vera González García, CS Los Rosales, Madrid; Mª Àngels González Martínez, CAP Trinitat Vella, Barcelona; Mª Mar Jarque Moyano, CAP Sanllehy, Barcelona; Santiago Machín Hamalainen, CS General Ricardos, Madrid; Zulema Martí Oltra, CAP Montcada, Barcelona; Esperanza Martín Correa, CAP Passeig Maragall, Barcelona; David Medina Bombardó, CS Sa Torre, Manacor; Jordi Milozzi Berrocal, CAP Baix a Mar, Vilanova i la Geltrú; Carlos Molero Alfonso, CS Ses Roques Llises, Vilafranca; Roberto Mourelle Varela, CAP Poblenou, Barcelona; Eva Pasamón Lara, CS Can Misses, Eivissa; Alejandro Rabanal Basalo, CS Los Yébenes, Madrid; Meritxell Sánchez Amat, CAP Besòs, Barcelona; Francisco Javier Sierra Alonso, CS Las Águilas, Madrid; Kenia Vázquez Acevedo, CAP Passeig Maragall, Barcelona.

Declarations

All GP participants and patients were informed about the study orally and with written information. They provided written consent prior to being enrolled in the study. The study was approved by the Majorcan Primary Care Research Committee and by the Balearic Islands Ethical Committee, with reference number IB 3210/16 PI.

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Kombi-Abonnement

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

Jetzt testen ¹

e.Med Innere Medizin

Kombi-Abonnement

Mit e.Med Innere Medizin erhalten Sie Zugang zu CME-Fortbildungen des Fachgebietes Innere Medizin, den Premium-Inhalten der internistischen Fachzeitschriften, inklusive einer gedruckten internistischen Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl.

Jetzt testen ²

e.Med Allgemeinmedizin

Kombi-Abonnement

Mit e.Med Allgemeinmedizin erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Premium-Inhalten der allgemeinmedizinischen Zeitschriften, inklusive einer gedruckten Allgemeinmedizin-Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl.

Jetzt testen ³

Dinant G. Diagnosis and decision. Undifferentiated illness and uncertainty in diagnosis and management. In: Jones R, Britten N, Gulpepper L, Gass D, Grol R, Mant D et al., ed. Oxford Textbook of Primary Medical Care. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004.

Gerrity MS, Earp JAL, DeVellis RF, Light DW. Uncertainty and professional work: perceptions of physicians in clinical practice. Am J Sociol. 1992;97(4):1022-1051.CrossRef

Rubin G, Berendsen A, Crawford SMM, et al. The expanding role of primary care in cancer control. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(12):1231-1272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00205-3CrossRefPubMed

Donner-Banzhoff N, Roth T, Sönnichsen AC, et al. Evaluating the accuracy of a simple heuristic to identify serious causes of low back pain. Fam Pract. 2006;23(6):682-686. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cml049CrossRefPubMed

Jameson J, Kasper D, Longo D, Fauci A, Hauser S, Loscalzo J. The practice of medicine. In: Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine. 20th ed. New York: McGraw Hill Education; 2018:1-8.

Montgomery K. How Doctors Think: Clinical Judgment and the Practice of Medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.

Hull FM. The consultation process. In: Sheldon M, Brooke J, Rector A, eds. Decision Making in General Practice. London: MacMillan; 1985:13–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-07159-3_2.CrossRef

Stolper E, Van Royen P, Van de Wiel M, et al. Consensus on gut feelings in general practice. BMC Fam Pract. 2009;10:66. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-10-66CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Oliva B, March S, Gadea C, Stolper E, Esteva M. Gut feelings in the diagnostic process of Spanish GPs: a focus group study. BMJ Open. 2016;6(12). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012847

10.

Stolper E, Van De Wiel M, Van Royen P, Van Bokhoven M, Van Der Weijden T, Dinant GJ. Gut feelings as a third track in general practitioners’ diagnostic reasoning. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26:197-203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1524-5CrossRefPubMed

11.

Stolper E, van Bokhoven M, Houben P, et al. The diagnostic role of gut feelings in general practice. A focus group study of the concept and its determinants. BMC Fam Pract. 2009;10:17. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-10-17CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Donker GA, Wiersma E, van der Hoek L, Heins M. Determinants of general practitioner’s cancer-related gut feelings—a prospective cohort study. BMJ Open. 2016;6(9):e012511. http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/9/e012511.abstract. Accessed August 20, 2019.

13.

Barais M, Fossard E, Dany A, Montier T, Stolper E, Van Royen P. Accuracy of the general practitioner’s sense of alarm when confronted with dyspnoea and/or chest pain: a prospective observational study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(2):e034348. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034348CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Iqbal IZ, Kara N, Hartley C. Gut instinct: a diagnostic tool? J Laryngol Otol. 2015;March(19):1–4. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022215115000614

15.

Van Den Brink N, Holbrechts B, Brand PLP, Stolper ECF, Van Royen P. Role of intuitive knowledge in the diagnostic reasoning of hospital specialists: A focus group study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(1). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022724

16.

Hams SP. A gut feeling? Intuition and critical care nursing. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2000;16(5):310-318. https://doi.org/10.1054/iccn.2000.1500CrossRefPubMed

17.

Friedemann Smith C, Moller Kristensen B, Sand Andersen R, Hobbs FR, Ziebland S, Nicholson BD. GPs’ use of gut feelings when assessing cancer risk in primary care: A qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract. December 2020:bjgp21X714269. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp21X714269

18.

Johansen M-L, Holtedahl KA, Rudebeck CE. How does the thought of cancer arise in a general practice consultation? Interviews with GPs. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2012;30(3):135-140. https://doi.org/10.3109/02813432.2012.688701CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Green T, Atkin K, Macleod U. Cancer detection in primary care: insights from general practitioners. Br J Cancer. 2015;112:s41-s49. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2015.41CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Smith CF, Drew S, Ziebland S, Nicholson BD. Understanding the role of GPs’ gut feelings in diagnosing cancer in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing evidence. Br J Gen Pract. August 2020:bjgp20X712301. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp20X712301

21.

Van Den Bruel A, Thompson M, Buntinx F, Mant D. Clinicians’ gut feeling about serious infections in children: Observational study. BMJ. 2012;345(7876):2018-2021. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e6144CrossRef

22.

Verbakel JY, Lemiengre MB, De Burghgraeve T, et al. Validating a decision tree for serious infection: diagnostic accuracy in acutely ill children in ambulatory care. BMJ Open. 2015;5(8):e008657. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008657CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Vedsted P, Olesen F. A differentiated approach to referrals from general practice to support early cancer diagnosis – the Danish three-legged strategy. Br J Cancer. 2015;112(S1):S65-S69. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2015.44CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Nicholson BD, Oke J, Friedemann Smith C, et al. The Suspected CANcer (SCAN) pathway: protocol for evaluating a new standard of care for patients with non-specific symptoms of cancer. BMJ Open. 2018;8(1):e018168. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018168CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Buntinx F, Mant D, Van den Bruel A, Donner-Banzhof N, Dinant G-JJ. Dealing with low-incidence serious diseases in general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 2011;61(582):43-46. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp11X548974CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Hjertholm P, Moth G, Ingeman ML, Vedsted P. Predictive values of GPs’ suspicion of serious disease: A population-based follow-up study. Br J Gen Pract. 2014;64(June):346-353. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp14X680125CrossRef

27.

Barais M, Hauswaldt J, Hausmann D, et al. The linguistic validation of the gut feelings questionnaire in three European languages. BMC Fam Pract. 2017;18(1):54. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-017-0626-0CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Oliva-Fanlo B, March S, Stolper E, Esteva M.Cross-cultural translation and validation of the ‘ gut feelings ’ questionnaire into Spanish and Catalan. Eur J Gen Pract. 2018;0(0):1-5. https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2018.1514385CrossRef

29.

Oliva-Fanlo B, March S, Medina D, et al. Prevalence and diagnostic value of GPs’ gut feelings for cancer and serious diseases: protocol for a prospective observational study of diagnostic validity. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e032404. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032404

30.

Martinez-Cañavate T. Modelo multinivel explicativo de la utilización de las consultas de atención primaria en Andalucía. [PhD Thesis]. Granada, Spain: Universidad de Granada; 2007. http://hera.ugr.es/tesisugr/16905234.pdf.

31.

Engel GL. The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science. 1977;196(4286):129-136. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/847460. Accessed December 29, 2017.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Turabián Fernández JL, Pérez Franco B. El médico con tres cabezas. Aten Primaria. 2006;38(10):570-573. https://doi.org/10.1157/13095929CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Pacini R, Epstein S. The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999;76(6):972-987. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10402681.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Witteman C, van den Bercken J, Claes L, et al. Assessing Rational and Intuitive Thinking Styles. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2009;25(1):39-47. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.25.1.39CrossRef

35.

Shapley M, Mansell G, Jordan JL, Jordan KP. Positive predictive values of 5% in primary care for cancer: Systematic review. Br J Gen Pract. 2010;60(578):366-377. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp10X515412CrossRef

36.

Ingebrigtsen SG, Scheel BI, Hart B, Thorsen T, Holtedahl K. Frequency of “warning signs of cancer” in Norwegian general practice, with prospective recording of subsequent cancer. Fam Pract. 2013;30(2):153-160. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cms065CrossRefPubMed

37.

Scheel BI, Ingebrigtsen SG, Thorsen T, Holtedahl K. Cancer suspicion in general practice: the role of symptoms and patient characteristics, and their association with subsequent cancer. Br J Gen Pract. 2013;63(614):e627-e635. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp13X671614CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Hamilton W. The CAPER studies: five case-control studies aimed at identifying and quantifying the risk of cancer in symptomatic primary care patients. Br J Cancer. 2009;101(Suppl 2):S80-S86. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6605396CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Stolper CF, Van de Wiel MWJ, De Vet HCW, et al. Family physicians’ diagnostic gut feelings are measurable: construct validation of a questionnaire. BMC Fam Pract. 2013;14(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-14-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression. Second. John Wiley & Sons; 2000.CrossRef

41.

Barber Pérez P, González López-Valcárcel B. Estimación De La Oferta Y Demanda De Médicos Especialistas. España 2018-2030. medRxiv. 2019;1:168. http://medrxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/19005298.

42.

Subdirección General de Análisis. Prospectiva y Coordinación. Población y Sociedad Rural. Análisis y Prospectiva. AgroInfo 12. http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/ministerio/servicios/analisis-y-prospectiva/Agrinfo12_tcm7-161562.pdf. Published 2009. Accessed 7 April 2021.

43.

Rogado J, Obispo B, Gullón P, Lara MÁ. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in cancer diagnosis in the first and second waves in one of the most affected cancer areas in the city of Madrid (Spain). Int J Cancer. 2021;148(7):1794-1795. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.33462CrossRefPubMed

44.

Suárez J, Mata E, Guerra A, et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic during Spain’s state of emergency on the diagnosis of colorectal cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2021;123(1):32-36. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.26263CrossRefPubMed

45.

Stanovich KE, West RF. Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behav Brain Sci. 2000;23:645-726. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X03210116CrossRefPubMed

46.

Osman M. An evaluation of dual-process theories of reasoning. Psychon Bull Rev. 2004;11(6):988-1010. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196730CrossRefPubMed

47.

Knottnerus JA. Medical decision making by general practitioners and specialists. Family Practice. 1991;8:305-307.

48.

Stolper E. Gut Feelings in General Practice. [PhD Thesis]. Maastricht, The Netherlands: Maastricht University; 2010.

49.

Parsons H. What Happened at Hawthorne? Science (80- ). 1974;183(4128):922-932. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984119.n2CrossRef

50.

McCambridge J, Witton J, Elbourne DR. Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: New concepts are needed to study research participation effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(3):267-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.08.015CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

51.

Sujatha BK, Reddy MT, Pathak P. Camouflage in Research – the Hawthorne Effect. Int J Dev Res. 2019;09(April):26996-26999.

52.

Ingeman ML, Christensen MB, Bro F, et al. The Danish cancer pathway for patients with serious non-specific symptoms and signs of cancer–across-sectional study of patient characteristics and cancer probability. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:421-431. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-015-1424-5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Prospective Observational Study on the Prevalence and Diagnostic Value of General Practitioners’ Gut Feelings for Cancer and Serious Diseases
verfasst von: Bernardino Oliva-Fanlo, MD
Sebastià March, MPH
Cristina Gadea-Ruiz, MD
Erik Stolper, PhD
Magdalena Esteva, PhD
On behalf of the CORap group
Publikationsdatum: 27.01.2022
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Journal of General Internal Medicine / Ausgabe 15/2022
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Elektronische ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-021-07352-w

Adaptability on Shifting Ground: a Rapid Qualitative Assessment of Multi-institutional Inpatient Surge Planning and Workforce Deployment During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Zur Zeit gratis
COVID-19
Original Research: Qualitative Research

The Electronic Health Record Inbox: Recommendations for Relief

Open Access
Viewpoint

Physicians’ Perceptions of Race and Engagement in Race-Based Clinical Practice: a Mixed-Methods Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis

Systematic Review

Presence of Geriatric Conditions Is Prognostic of Major Bleeding in Older Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: a Cohort Study

Original Research

Are Accuracy Parameters Useful for Improving the Performance of Gender Detection Tools? A Comparative Study with Western and Chinese Names

Concise Research Report

Trends in Illness Severity, Hospitalization, and Mortality for Community-Onset Pneumonia at 118 US Veterans Affairs Medical Centers

Original Research

Kompaktes Leitlinien-Wissen Innere Medizin (Link öffnet in neuem Fenster)

Mit medbee Pocketcards schnell und sicher entscheiden.
Leitlinien-Wissen kostenlos und immer griffbereit auf ihrem Desktop, Handy oder Tablet.

Kostenlos registrieren

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

Verbände und Cremes gegen Dekubitus: „Wir wissen nicht, was sie bringen!“

17.01.2025
Dekubitus
Nachrichten

Die Datenlage zur Wirksamkeit von Verbänden oder topischen Mitteln zur Prävention von Druckgeschwüren sei schlecht, so die Verfasser einer aktuellen Cochrane-Studie. Letztlich bleibe es unsicher, ob solche Maßnahmen den Betroffenen nutzen oder schaden.

Schützt das tägliche Glas Milch vor Darmkrebs?

17.01.2025
Kolorektales Karzinom
Nachrichten

Die Milch machts – sie bietet Frauen nach Daten einer großen Ernährungsanalyse den besten Darmkrebsschutz aller Lebensmittel, was am hohen Kalziumgehalt liegen dürfte. Am anderen Ende des Spektrums steht der Alkoholkonsum: Das Glas Wein am Abend ist eher ungünstig.

Vorsicht mit Glukokortikoiden bei Glomerulopathie

16.01.2025
Primäre Glomerulonephritiden
Nachrichten

Auch niedrig dosierte Glukokortikoide zur Behandlung einer primären Glomerulopathie lassen offenbar die Infektionsgefahr steigen. In einer US-Studie hing das Risiko vor allem mit der kombinierten Anwendung von Immunsuppressiva zusammen.

KI-gestütztes Mammografiescreening überzeugt im Praxistest

16.01.2025
Künstliche Intelligenz im Gesundheitswesen
Nachrichten

Mit dem Einsatz künstlicher Intelligenz lässt sich die Detektionsrate im Mammografiescreening offenbar deutlich steigern. Mehr unnötige Zusatzuntersuchungen sind laut der Studie aus Deutschland nicht zu befürchten.

EKG Essentials: EKG befunden mit System (Link öffnet in neuem Fenster)

In diesem CME-Kurs können Sie Ihr Wissen zur EKG-Befundung anhand von zwölf Video-Tutorials auffrischen und 10 CME-Punkte sammeln.
Praxisnah, relevant und mit vielen Tipps & Tricks vom Profi.

Jetzt 10 CME-Punkte sammeln

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Background

Objective

Design

Participants

Main Measures

Key Results

Conclusions

Publisher’s Note

BACKGROUND

METHODS

Participants

Measurements

Statistical Analysis

RESULTS

Prevalence of Gut Feelings

Actions During Follow-up

Diagnostic Value

DISCUSSION

Summary of Findings

Strengths and Limitations

Comparison with Existing Literature

Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Declarations

Ethic Approval and Consent

Competing Interests

Publisher’s Note

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

e.Med Innere Medizin

e.Med Allgemeinmedizin