{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018537590113285273, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.151898734177215, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Open prospective recording: how is the doctor influenced?

In open prospective recording the participating doctors may be influenced by the study itself. There are two factors contributing to this influence: the doctor's status as an observer and as an observed subject. A model for analysing this influence is presented. In a Norwegian general practice study of the recording of conditions suspected of being cancer the changes owing to the recording itself have been studied by three different means: indicator comparison, time-trend analysis and post-registration enquiry. The study showed that the effect of the recording was small, and this was perhaps a result of prophylactic efforts by the doctors to minimize the influence. An influence on the doctors' actions and thinking during a period of registration should always be expected, and control methods to give a semi-quantitative expression of the consequences of this influence should therefore be carried out.