Siri Dalsmo Berge, Mette Brekke, Eivind Meland, Thomas Mildestvedt
{"title":"How patients experience discussing couple relationship problems with GPs: an interview study.","authors":"Siri Dalsmo Berge, Mette Brekke, Eivind Meland, Thomas Mildestvedt","doi":"10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Couple relationship satisfaction is related to good physical health, good mental health, and longevity. Many patients have discussed or wish to discuss their couple relationship with their GP and look for personalised care and support when discussing topics they perceive as sensitive.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To explore patient experiences of discussing couple relationship problems in GP consultations.</p><p><strong>Design & setting: </strong>Qualitative study employing semi-structured interviews with patients from general practice in Norway.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Individual interviews with 18 patients who had discussed their couple relationship with their GP. Participants were recruited through both social media and traditional media, and all interviews were digitally recorded. The purposive sample comprised 13 women and five men, representing diverse age groups, backgrounds, and relationship problems. All participants identified as heterosexual. We analysed interview data thematically using systematic text condensation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three main themes emerged: 1) GPs in a facilitating role, not on an assembly line; 2) navigating the 'elephant in the room'; and 3) GPs as biomedically competent life witnesses. GP continuity was vital in fostering the trust required to discuss sensitive topics, such as relationship issues. Participants valued a biopsychosocial approach that incorporated knowledge of close relationships into medical consultations. They appreciated both GP support and constructive challenges that prompted them to take responsibility for relationship improvements.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients value their GPs' holistic, supportive, and direct approach in addressing couple relationship problems, although they perceive that GPs do not always have sufficient time. They welcome relevant challenges that can drive positive change.</p>","PeriodicalId":36541,"journal":{"name":"BJGP Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJGP Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0044","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Couple relationship satisfaction is related to good physical health, good mental health, and longevity. Many patients have discussed or wish to discuss their couple relationship with their GP and look for personalised care and support when discussing topics they perceive as sensitive.
Aim: To explore patient experiences of discussing couple relationship problems in GP consultations.
Design & setting: Qualitative study employing semi-structured interviews with patients from general practice in Norway.
Method: Individual interviews with 18 patients who had discussed their couple relationship with their GP. Participants were recruited through both social media and traditional media, and all interviews were digitally recorded. The purposive sample comprised 13 women and five men, representing diverse age groups, backgrounds, and relationship problems. All participants identified as heterosexual. We analysed interview data thematically using systematic text condensation.
Results: Three main themes emerged: 1) GPs in a facilitating role, not on an assembly line; 2) navigating the 'elephant in the room'; and 3) GPs as biomedically competent life witnesses. GP continuity was vital in fostering the trust required to discuss sensitive topics, such as relationship issues. Participants valued a biopsychosocial approach that incorporated knowledge of close relationships into medical consultations. They appreciated both GP support and constructive challenges that prompted them to take responsibility for relationship improvements.
Conclusion: Patients value their GPs' holistic, supportive, and direct approach in addressing couple relationship problems, although they perceive that GPs do not always have sufficient time. They welcome relevant challenges that can drive positive change.