IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v49y1999i4p459-467.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prescribing benzodiazepines--a critical incident study of a physician dilemma

Author

Listed:
  • Bendtsen, Preben
  • Hensing, Gunnel
  • McKenzie, Lotta
  • Stridsman, Anna-Karin

Abstract

Use of benzodiazepines has been discussed extensively both among the public and within the medical society. The aim of this study was to explore the quality of dilemmas experienced by physicians when prescribing benzodiazepines. A questionnaire was sent to 213 Swedish General Practitioners. The critical incident technique was chosen as an appropriate method for surveying professional experiences. Concern for the patient and threats to the integrity of the physician were common dilemmas. The physicians did not believe that the patients were telling the truth or did not trust the patients' ability to handle the medicine. The most frequent consequences of the dilemmas were worry about a disturbed relationship with patients indicating an uncertainty as to how to create a good relationship with them. The participants in the study were aware of the national guidelines for prescribing benzodiazepines, but due to insufficient time a prescription was often chosen as a way to handle the dilemmas. Improvement in the rational use of benzodiazepines is not achieved by the medical board making new rules but rather by offering physicians education in communication and negotiating skills as well as more time with the individual patient who is requesting benzodiazepines.

Suggested Citation

  • Bendtsen, Preben & Hensing, Gunnel & McKenzie, Lotta & Stridsman, Anna-Karin, 1999. "Prescribing benzodiazepines--a critical incident study of a physician dilemma," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 459-467, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:49:y:1999:i:4:p:459-467
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(99)00133-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:49:y:1999:i:4:p:459-467. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.