Perceived benefits and challenges one year after receiving brief therapy in a district psychiatric centre. An exploration of patients' and GPs' experiences: A qualitative study.

IF 2.9 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
PLoS ONE Pub Date : 2024-12-23 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0312513
Hilde V Markussen, Lene Aasdahl, Petter Viksveen, Marit B Rise
{"title":"Perceived benefits and challenges one year after receiving brief therapy in a district psychiatric centre. An exploration of patients' and GPs' experiences: A qualitative study.","authors":"Hilde V Markussen, Lene Aasdahl, Petter Viksveen, Marit B Rise","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0312513","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Scarce treatment resources put pressure on mental health services prompting innovations in service provision. Various innovative strategies have been introduced to provide patients with improved and effective treatment due to increased demands for mental health services. In 2016 a district psychiatric centre (DPC) started a brief treatment program to provide early and effective help for moderate depression and anxiety. There is little evidence regarding the potential benefits that different mental health patients may experience after receiving brief therapy treatment. Moreover, few studies have explored the experiences of referring general practitioners (GPs) with different patient outcomes after brief therapy. The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term experiences of patients who received brief therapy at a DPC at least one year ago, as well as the experiences of general practitioners (GPs) who referred patients for such treatment since 2016. Specifically, the study sought to determine patterns in the patients' stories and GPs' experiences to see if it could provide new insight for further studies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted individual interviews with a total of seventeen participants, consisting of eleven patients and six GPs. Using an exploratory approach, we analyzed patients' narratives as they described them in the interviews, employing inductive and thematic analysis techniques. The GPs' experiences of referring several patients to brief therapy were also subjected to thematic analysis. In addition, we synthesized the patients' experiences into condensed stories for comparison. The experiences of GPs, who had referred patients to this brief treatment program over several years, were compared with the patients' experiences and reflections one year after receiving brief therapy. This comparison aimed to challenge and deepen the understanding of condensed patient stories.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The main results are presented as three condensed patient stories: A) Coping with mental problems; B) A path to another treatment; and C) Confusion and lost hope. The GPs' experiences are included in each condensed patient story to challenge and elaborate on relevant aspects.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Time-limited brief therapy was experienced as beneficial for patients with moderate affective and anxiety disorders but was experienced as unsuitable for those with more severe conditions. This raises important questions about the appropriateness of offering brief therapy to a diverse patient population and the efficient use of healthcare resources. We recommend further research to enhance understanding and develop tailored treatment services for different ailments. Identifying which patients benefit most from specific therapies can improve outcomes and resource allocation. An important improvement measure might be to enhance early communication between patients, General Practitioners (GPs), and District Psychiatric Centres (DPCs) before referrals. Ensuring brief therapy is targeted to those likely to benefit the most will enhance treatment effectiveness. Additionally, we suggest implementing joint assessment meetings to facilitate comprehensive information exchange and coordination among different care levels. This approach would improve assessments, treatment planning, and follow-up strategies, ultimately leading to better patient care and resource management.</p>","PeriodicalId":20189,"journal":{"name":"PLoS ONE","volume":"19 12","pages":"e0312513"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS ONE","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312513","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Scarce treatment resources put pressure on mental health services prompting innovations in service provision. Various innovative strategies have been introduced to provide patients with improved and effective treatment due to increased demands for mental health services. In 2016 a district psychiatric centre (DPC) started a brief treatment program to provide early and effective help for moderate depression and anxiety. There is little evidence regarding the potential benefits that different mental health patients may experience after receiving brief therapy treatment. Moreover, few studies have explored the experiences of referring general practitioners (GPs) with different patient outcomes after brief therapy. The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term experiences of patients who received brief therapy at a DPC at least one year ago, as well as the experiences of general practitioners (GPs) who referred patients for such treatment since 2016. Specifically, the study sought to determine patterns in the patients' stories and GPs' experiences to see if it could provide new insight for further studies.

Methods: We conducted individual interviews with a total of seventeen participants, consisting of eleven patients and six GPs. Using an exploratory approach, we analyzed patients' narratives as they described them in the interviews, employing inductive and thematic analysis techniques. The GPs' experiences of referring several patients to brief therapy were also subjected to thematic analysis. In addition, we synthesized the patients' experiences into condensed stories for comparison. The experiences of GPs, who had referred patients to this brief treatment program over several years, were compared with the patients' experiences and reflections one year after receiving brief therapy. This comparison aimed to challenge and deepen the understanding of condensed patient stories.

Results: The main results are presented as three condensed patient stories: A) Coping with mental problems; B) A path to another treatment; and C) Confusion and lost hope. The GPs' experiences are included in each condensed patient story to challenge and elaborate on relevant aspects.

Conclusion: Time-limited brief therapy was experienced as beneficial for patients with moderate affective and anxiety disorders but was experienced as unsuitable for those with more severe conditions. This raises important questions about the appropriateness of offering brief therapy to a diverse patient population and the efficient use of healthcare resources. We recommend further research to enhance understanding and develop tailored treatment services for different ailments. Identifying which patients benefit most from specific therapies can improve outcomes and resource allocation. An important improvement measure might be to enhance early communication between patients, General Practitioners (GPs), and District Psychiatric Centres (DPCs) before referrals. Ensuring brief therapy is targeted to those likely to benefit the most will enhance treatment effectiveness. Additionally, we suggest implementing joint assessment meetings to facilitate comprehensive information exchange and coordination among different care levels. This approach would improve assessments, treatment planning, and follow-up strategies, ultimately leading to better patient care and resource management.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
PLoS ONE
PLoS ONE 生物-生物学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
5.40%
发文量
14242
审稿时长
3.7 months
期刊介绍: PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides: * Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright * Fast publication times * Peer review by expert, practicing researchers * Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact * Community-based dialogue on articles * Worldwide media coverage
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信