Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Life & Times

Debrief: Generalism for bounded rationalists

Euan Lawson
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (688): 554. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp19X706277
Euan Lawson
Email:
Roles: Deputy Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: euan@euanlawson.com
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading
Figure1

The clinical evidence boulder

An experienced colleague told me years ago that he didn’t routinely use his BNF. He was comfortable he knew what he needed. I was a little impressed, perhaps even envious, but then I thought: you know the information in there changes? I remain idealistic enough to hope that research in journals such as the BJGP and the guidance written in the BNF are intrinsically linked but it is undeniably Sisyphean to stay up to date; a relentless struggle to push the boulder of clinical care up an ever-steepening slope of evidence. Clinical update days can bridge the gap and remain wildly popular despite the death-by-PowerPoint style. Other than revalidation diktats, what motivates GPs to give up a Saturday for them? My guesses: complexity and fear. It’s the daily tyranny of the consultation in a world where the complexity of prescribing decisions has rocketed.

This feels like a pressing problem. How can we do it all and how do we define the limits of a generalist’s knowledge? Because let’s be clear on this — there are limits. Specialists can narrow their niche but we have no such mechanism. It was Nobel prize-winning economist and psychologist Herbert Alexander Simon who recognised the limitations of people to make rational decisions in the complex world. Our rationality is bounded. He came up with the portmanteau ‘satisficing’ to describe the process of managing complexity where people simply take what is offered if it satisfies and suffices. No more is needed.

Aldi and the paradox of choice

The bigger supermarkets have been apparently powerless to hold back the rise of Aldi in recent years.1 One might assume Aldi is popular because it offers value shopping. Personally, I think Aldi’s success is attributable to more subtle psychological forces that are in play: the Aldi effect is really about the paradox of choice. In line with Simon’s thinking, it has been shown that when we are faced with too many options we struggle. Psychologist Barry Schwartz documented the dizzying array of decisions we face when visiting the local supermarket and highlighted how too much choice is damaging to our wellbeing.2

One simple study showed this beautifully — participants had to pick chocolates from a selection. Some people had 30 varieties on offer and others had a more select group of six. Those with more to choose from took longer and were less happy with their choices — even when they ate the same chocolate as those with fewer choices.3 Performing exhaustive analyses is stressful and leaves more opportunity for regret. This choice architecture is not limited to consumers and plays out in modern medicine for doctors and patients.

Generalism suffers most from complexity

I suspect that happy generalists are strong satisficers. We are faced with more treatment choices, yet we have little additional time. It is astonishing how much we can synthesise, but how can we sustain evidence-based medicines values in the face of such pressures? This is real-world bounded rationality in all its ignominious glory; the world is just too complex for our individual ape brains. Bounded rationality is similarly a problem for patients. One of the contradictions of patient-centred care, pressing decisions on patients, is that they are exposed even more to the paradox of choice.

Clinical update courses are the Aldi of evidence-based generalism. They reduce the overwhelming complexity of evidence-based clinical medicine to manageable levels of choice. It may not be enough for the future and, for all my reservations about technology intruding on the consultation, we need help. I don’t feel any embarrassment dipping into a flowchart to unpick treatment decisions for diabetes or hypertension. These are, of course, basic algorithms. We have to recognise our limitations, and finding ways to integrate complex algorithms, even with their averagarian flaws, at individual consultation level may be unavoidable. Until then I’ll be keeping my BNF handy.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2019

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Rice X
    (Mar 5, 2019) Guardian, The Aldi effect: how one discount supermarket transformed the way Britain shops. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/05/long-read-aldi-discount-supermarket-changed-britain-shopping (accessed 8 Oct 2019).
  2. 2.↵
    1. Schwartz B
    (2005) The paradox of choice: why more is less (Harper Perennial, London).
  3. 3.↵
    1. Iyengar SS,
    2. Lepper MR
    (2000) When choice is demotivating: can one desire too much of a good thing? J Pers Soc Psychol 79(6):995–1006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 69 (688)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 69, Issue 688
November 2019
  • 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 British Journal of General Practice.

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.
Debrief: Generalism for bounded rationalists
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Debrief: Generalism for bounded rationalists
Euan Lawson
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (688): 554. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp19X706277

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Debrief: Generalism for bounded rationalists
Euan Lawson
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (688): 554. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp19X706277
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
    • The clinical evidence boulder
    • Aldi and the paradox of choice
    • Generalism suffers most from complexity
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Despite coronavirus, general practice is still the best job in the world
  • Addressing the elephant in the room: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Black and Asian communities
  • Yonder: Social distancing, point-of-care ultrasound, Irish GPs’ educational needs, and retirement
Show more Life & Times

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

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

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242