Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • LATEST ARTICLES
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP Open
    • BJGP Open Accessibility Statement
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Fellowships
    • Audio Abstracts
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Outreach
    • BJGP Life
    • Research into Publication Science
    • Advertising
    • Contact
    • Top 10 Research Articles of the Year
  • SPECIAL ISSUES
    • Special issue: Telehealth
    • Special issue: Race and Racism in Primary Care
    • Special issue: COVID-19 and Primary Care
    • Past research calls
  • CONFERENCE
  • RCGP
    • British Journal of General Practice
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
BJGP Open
  • RCGP
    • British Journal of General Practice
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
BJGP Open
Intended for Healthcare Professionals

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • LATEST ARTICLES
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP Open
    • BJGP Open Accessibility Statement
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Fellowships
    • Audio Abstracts
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Outreach
    • BJGP Life
    • Research into Publication Science
    • Advertising
    • Contact
    • Top 10 Research Articles of the Year
  • SPECIAL ISSUES
    • Special issue: Telehealth
    • Special issue: Race and Racism in Primary Care
    • Special issue: COVID-19 and Primary Care
    • Past research calls
  • CONFERENCE
Research

GPs’ understanding of the benefits and harms of treatments for long-term conditions: an online survey

Julian Stephen Treadwell, Geoff Wong, Coral Milburn-Curtis, Benjamin Feakins and Trisha Greenhalgh
BJGP Open 2020; 4 (1): bjgpopen20X101016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgpopen20X101016
Julian Stephen Treadwell
1 NIHR Doctoral Research Fellow, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Julian Stephen Treadwell
  • For correspondence: julian.treadwell@phc.ox.ac.uk
Geoff Wong
2 Clinical Research Fellow, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Coral Milburn-Curtis
3 Associate Fellow, Green Templeton College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Benjamin Feakins
4 Biostatistician, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Trisha Greenhalgh
5 Professor of Primary Health Care, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading
Submit a Response to This Article
Compose eLetter

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com. PLEASE NOTE: your email address will be published.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

  • Benchmarking understanding and tolerance of risk?
    Terry Kemple
    Published on: 06 March 2020
  • Published on: (6 March 2020)
    Page navigation anchor for Benchmarking understanding and tolerance of risk?
    Benchmarking understanding and tolerance of risk?
    • Terry Kemple, Retired GP, RCGP

    Patients currently cannot weigh the true benefits and harms of tests and treatments and usually consent with only a poor understanding of their risks. Doctors can no longer claim ignorance about this ignorance. They have a duty to inform their patients better.
    The Bolam principle (that if a doctor reaches the standard of a responsible body of medical opinion, they are not negligent) was overturned in 2015 by the of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board. This confirmed that a patient’s right to self-determination in treatment decisions triumphs over medical paternalism. Patients must now be properly advised about their treatment options and the risks associated with each option so that they can make informed decisions when giving or withholding consent to treatment. In other words, the principles of informed shared decision making must be the norm.

    The reason treatments that are not that good continue to be recommended include: true uncertainty, denominator neglect, framing, incentives schemes, peer group pressures, and lack of easy access to the relevant Numbers Needed to Treat (NNT) and Numbers Needed to Harm (NNH).

    When there is true uncertainty then the risk cannot be quantified. In denominator neglect, stories about the numerator (those that have things happen to them) rather than the rest of the denominator (those who do nothing and to whom nothing happens) are remembered most. In framing, the same risk inf...

    Show More

    Patients currently cannot weigh the true benefits and harms of tests and treatments and usually consent with only a poor understanding of their risks. Doctors can no longer claim ignorance about this ignorance. They have a duty to inform their patients better.
    The Bolam principle (that if a doctor reaches the standard of a responsible body of medical opinion, they are not negligent) was overturned in 2015 by the of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board. This confirmed that a patient’s right to self-determination in treatment decisions triumphs over medical paternalism. Patients must now be properly advised about their treatment options and the risks associated with each option so that they can make informed decisions when giving or withholding consent to treatment. In other words, the principles of informed shared decision making must be the norm.

    The reason treatments that are not that good continue to be recommended include: true uncertainty, denominator neglect, framing, incentives schemes, peer group pressures, and lack of easy access to the relevant Numbers Needed to Treat (NNT) and Numbers Needed to Harm (NNH).

    When there is true uncertainty then the risk cannot be quantified. In denominator neglect, stories about the numerator (those that have things happen to them) rather than the rest of the denominator (those who do nothing and to whom nothing happens) are remembered most. In framing, the same risk information can either be portrayed as dangerous or safe and influences choices.

    Patients cannot make informed shared decisions and consent to treatment if they (and their doctors) do not know the relevant NNT and NNH. Clinicians’ poor understanding of the benefits and harms of medical interventions and the tendency to overestimate the benefits of treatments is a system failure but clinicians have a responsibility to press for NNT and NNH information to be easily accessible. The absence of this essential should no longer be tolerated.

    Risk scores for tests and treatments need to be available to inform everyday decision making. There are NNT/NNH websites like http://www.thennt.com but they are neither comprehensive in content nor widely used. Patients and doctors also need to benchmark their own understanding and tolerance of risk and make this clear when they share discussions about recommendations.
    If patients are helped to better understand their risk, they should make more informed and personal choices about their care (and they may often decline care). Fully informed shared decision making should be our usual standard.

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

BJGP Open
Vol. 4, Issue 1
April 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Download PowerPoint
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending BJGP Open.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
GPs’ understanding of the benefits and harms of treatments for long-term conditions: an online survey
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from BJGP Open
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from BJGP Open.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
GPs’ understanding of the benefits and harms of treatments for long-term conditions: an online survey
Julian Stephen Treadwell, Geoff Wong, Coral Milburn-Curtis, Benjamin Feakins, Trisha Greenhalgh
BJGP Open 2020; 4 (1): bjgpopen20X101016. DOI: 10.3399/bjgpopen20X101016

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
GPs’ understanding of the benefits and harms of treatments for long-term conditions: an online survey
Julian Stephen Treadwell, Geoff Wong, Coral Milburn-Curtis, Benjamin Feakins, Trisha Greenhalgh
BJGP Open 2020; 4 (1): bjgpopen20X101016. DOI: 10.3399/bjgpopen20X101016
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • Abstract
    • How this fits in
    • Introduction
    • Method
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • prescribing
  • family medicine
  • comorbidity
  • long-term care
  • clinical decision-making

More in this TOC Section

  • Translating primary care to telehealth: analysis of in-person consultations on diabetes and cardiovascular disease
  • Primary care physicians’ perceptions of social determinants of health recommendations: a qualitative study
  • Variation in laboratory testing for patients with long-term conditions: a longitudinal cohort study in UK primary care
Show more Research

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

@BJGPOpen's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Latest articles
  • Authors & reviewers
  • Accessibility statement

RCGP

  • British Journal of General Practice
  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP Open
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP Open: research
  • Writing for BJGP Open: practice & policy
  • BJGP Open editorial process & policies
  • BJGP Open ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP Open

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Open access licence

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Open Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: bjgpopen@rcgp.org.uk

BJGP Open is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners

© 2023 BJGP Open

Online ISSN: 2398-3795