Can the APO method be used for measuring soft data?: A pilot study

Figures & data

Table I. Categories and subcategories from the content analysis of the concept of a “holistic view” [2].

Category	Subcategory
Attitude	Professional attitude
	Political/administrative attitude
Knowledge	Factual knowledge
	Tacit knowledge
Circumstances	Motivating factor
	Organization
	Sphere of activity
	Tool

Table II. A holistic view in primary care – two linked projects.

Earlier study
Strandberg EL, Ovhed I, Borgquist L, Wilhelmsson S. The perceived meaning of a (w)holistic view among general practitioners and district nurses in Swedish primary care: a qualitative study.
BMC Fam Pract 2007;8:8
Period
January 2002	Invitation and start of planning the study
November 2002–March 2003	Seven focus-group interviews with 22 GPs and 20 nurses
August–December 2003	Analysis
August 2007	Publication
Current study
Spring 2006	Planning of the current study
September 2006–February 2007	Initial APO audit brainstorming process
2 weeks in March 2007	Audit registration

Figure 1. The Likert scales.

Table IIIa. Main groups, groups, and variables in the APO registration chart concerning a holistic view in the general practitioner's medical decision-making.

	Groups	Variables	No.
Patient characteristics	Patient	Own patient	1
		Other doctor's patient	2
		No one's/everyone's patient	3
	Problem	Well-defined problem	4
		Difficult to define	5
Assessment	Important type of knowl.	Purely factual knowledge	6
		Familiarity	7
		Knowledge from the patient's network	8
		The capacity for judgement	9
Considered for medical decision	Factual knowl.	ConsideredNot consideredNot obtainable	101112
	Team knowl.	Considered	13
		Not considered	14
		Lacking	15
	District knowl.	Considered	16
		Not considered	17
		Not obtainable	18
	Oral knowl.	Considered	19
		Not considered	20
		Not obtainable	21
	Written knowl.	Considered	22
		Not considered	23
		Not obtainable	24
	Capacity for judgement	ConsideredNot consideredNot obtainable	252627
Evaluation	Significance of holistic view	NecessaryNot necessaryValuableNegative/added nothing	28293031

Table IIIb. Definitions: The participants’ explanations of the meaning of the different types of knowledge assessed in the pilot audit.

• Purely factual knowledge:The patient's problem requires factual medical knowledge.

• Familiarity:The overview and interpretation of a situation is not always fully underpinned by medical knowledge. The patient's problem requires familiarity (sometimes expressed as tacit and implicit knowledge), which is acquired through extensive experience.

• Knowledge from the patient's network:The patient's problem requires knowledge about and from the patient's network, family, and social surroundings (may have reached the doctor in different ways, but) is (regarded as) essential for helping the patient.

• The capacity for judgement:The patient's problem requires that you use your personal judgement, sometimes in contradiction to EBM, accepted practice, or your own former experience, since you believe that this is best for your patient.

Strandberg EL, Ovhed I, Borgquist L, Wilhelmsson S. The perceived meaning of a (w)holistic view among general practitioners and district nurses in Swedish primary care: a qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract 2007;8:8.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar