4.4 Article

Diagnosing headache in primary care: a qualitative study of GPs' approaches

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF GENERAL PRACTICE
Volume 64, Issue 626, Pages E532-E537

Publisher

ROYAL COLL GENERAL PRACTITIONERS
DOI: 10.3399/bjgp14X681325

Keywords

diagnosis; general practice; headache; qualitative research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Headache is one of the most common symptoms in primary care. Most headaches are due to primary headaches and many headache sufferers do not receive a specific diagnosis. There is still a gap in research on how GPs diagnose and treat patients with headache. Aim To identify GPs' diagnostic approaches in patients presenting with headache. Design and setting Qualitative study with 15 GPs in urban and rural practices. Method Interviews (20-40 minutes) were conducted using a semi-structured interview guideline. GPs described their individual diagnostic strategies by means of patients presenting with headache that they had prospectively identified during the previous 4 weeks. Interviews were taped and transcribed verbatim. Qualitative analysis was conducted by two independent raters. Results Regarding GPs' general diagnostic approach to patients with headache, four broad themes emerged during the interviews: 'knowing the patient and their background', 'first impression during consultation', 'intuition and personal experience' and 'application of the test of time'. Four further themes were identified regarding the management of diagnostic uncertainty: 'identification of red flags', 'use of the familiarity heuristic', 'therapeutic trial', and 'triggers for patient referral'. Conclusion GPs apply different strategies in the early diagnostic phase when managing patients with headache. Identification of potential adverse outcomes accompanied by other strategies for handling uncertainty seem to be more important than an exact diagnosis. Established guidelines do not play a role in the diagnostic workup.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available