부산대학교 도서관

Objectives: To explore the reasons why general practitioners do not always implement best evidence. Design: Qualitative study using Balint-style groups. Setting: Primary care. Participants: 19 general practitioners. Main outcome measures: Identifiable themes that indicate barriers to implementation. Results: Six main themes were identified that affected the implementation process: the personal and professional experiences of the general practitioners; the patient-doctor relationship; a perceived tension between primary and secondary care; general practitioners' feelings about their patients and the evidence; and logistical problems. Doctors are aware that their choice of words with patients can affect patients' decisions and whether evidence is implemented. Conclusions: General practitioner participants seem to act as a conduit within the consultation and regard clinical evidence as a square peg to fit in the round hole of the patient's life. The process of implementation is complex, fluid, and adaptive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]