Exploring how patients respond to GP recommendations for mental health treatment: an analysis of communication in primary care consultations.

IF 2.6 2区 生物学 Q1 ORNITHOLOGY
Condor Pub Date : 2019-10-29 DOI:10.3399/bjgpopen19X101670
Joseph Ford, Felicity Thomas, Richard Byng, Rose McCabe
{"title":"Exploring how patients respond to GP recommendations for mental health treatment: an analysis of communication in primary care consultations.","authors":"Joseph Ford, Felicity Thomas, Richard Byng, Rose McCabe","doi":"10.3399/bjgpopen19X101670","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient take-up and adherence to antidepressants and talking therapy is low. However, little is known about how GPs recommend these treatments and whether patients accept them.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To examine how GPs recommend antidepressants and talking therapy, and how patients respond.</p><p><strong>Design & setting: </strong>A total of 52 recorded primary care consultations for depression, anxiety, and stress were analysed.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Using a standardised coding scheme, five ways doctors recommend treatment were coded, conveying varying authority and endorsement. The treatment recommendation types were as follows: more directive pronouncements (I'll start you on X); proposals (How about we start X?); less directive suggestions (Would you like to try X?); offers (Do you want me to give you X?); and assertions (There are medications that might help). It was also coded whether patients accepted, passively resisted (for example, withholding response), or actively resisted (for example, I've tried that before).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 33 recommendations occurred in 23 consultations. In two-thirds of cases, GPs treated the patient as primary decision-maker by using suggestions, offers, or assertions. In one-third of cases, they used more directive pronouncements or proposals. GPs endorsed treatment moderately (67%), weakly (18%), or strongly (15%). Only one-quarter of recommendations were accepted immediately. Patients cited fears about medication side effects and/or dependency, group therapy, and doubts about treatment efficacy. Despite three-quarters of patients resisting, 76% got prescriptions or self-referral information for talking therapy.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Initially, GPs treat patients as the decision-maker. However, although patients resist, most end up with treatment. This may impact negatively on treatment uptake and success. Social prescribing may fill a treatment gap for some patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":50624,"journal":{"name":"Condor","volume":"119 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6995855/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Condor","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgpopen19X101670","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORNITHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patient take-up and adherence to antidepressants and talking therapy is low. However, little is known about how GPs recommend these treatments and whether patients accept them.

Aim: To examine how GPs recommend antidepressants and talking therapy, and how patients respond.

Design & setting: A total of 52 recorded primary care consultations for depression, anxiety, and stress were analysed.

Method: Using a standardised coding scheme, five ways doctors recommend treatment were coded, conveying varying authority and endorsement. The treatment recommendation types were as follows: more directive pronouncements (I'll start you on X); proposals (How about we start X?); less directive suggestions (Would you like to try X?); offers (Do you want me to give you X?); and assertions (There are medications that might help). It was also coded whether patients accepted, passively resisted (for example, withholding response), or actively resisted (for example, I've tried that before).

Results: A total of 33 recommendations occurred in 23 consultations. In two-thirds of cases, GPs treated the patient as primary decision-maker by using suggestions, offers, or assertions. In one-third of cases, they used more directive pronouncements or proposals. GPs endorsed treatment moderately (67%), weakly (18%), or strongly (15%). Only one-quarter of recommendations were accepted immediately. Patients cited fears about medication side effects and/or dependency, group therapy, and doubts about treatment efficacy. Despite three-quarters of patients resisting, 76% got prescriptions or self-referral information for talking therapy.

Conclusion: Initially, GPs treat patients as the decision-maker. However, although patients resist, most end up with treatment. This may impact negatively on treatment uptake and success. Social prescribing may fill a treatment gap for some patients.

探索患者如何回应全科医生的心理健康治疗建议:初级医疗咨询中的沟通分析。
背景:抗抑郁药物和谈话疗法的患者接受率和坚持率很低。目的:研究全科医生如何推荐抗抑郁药物和谈话疗法,以及患者的反应:方法:采用标准化的编码方案,对全科医生推荐的抗抑郁药物和谈话疗法进行分析:采用标准化编码方案,对医生推荐治疗的五种方式进行编码,这些方式表达了不同的权威性和认可度。治疗建议类型如下:指令性较强的声明(我让你开始治疗 X);建议(我们开始治疗 X 如何?此外,还对患者是接受、被动抵制(例如,不予回应)还是主动抵制(例如,我以前试过)进行了编码:结果:在 23 次问诊中,共提出了 33 项建议。在三分之二的案例中,全科医生通过建议、提议或断言将患者视为主要决策者。在三分之一的病例中,他们使用了更具指导性的声明或建议。全科医生对治疗的支持程度一般(67%)、较弱(18%)或较强(15%)。只有四分之一的建议被立即接受。患者担心药物副作用和/或依赖性、集体治疗以及对治疗效果的怀疑。尽管四分之三的患者表示抵制,但仍有 76% 的患者获得了谈话疗法的处方或自我转介信息:结论:最初,全科医生将患者视为决策者。结论:最初,全科医生将患者视为决策者。然而,尽管患者抵制,但大多数患者最终还是接受了治疗。这可能会对治疗的接受度和成功率产生负面影响。社会处方可能会填补一些患者的治疗空白。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Condor
Condor ORNITHOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
46
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Condor is the official publication of the Cooper Ornithological Society, a non-profit organization of over 2,000 professional and amateur ornithologists and one of the largest ornithological societies in the world. A quarterly international journal that publishes original research from all fields of avian biology, The Condor has been a highly respected forum in ornithology for more than 100 years. The journal is one of the top ranked ornithology publications. Types of paper published include feature articles (longer manuscripts) Short Communications (generally shorter papers or papers that deal with one primary finding), Commentaries (brief papers that comment on articles published previously in The Condor), and Book Reviews.
×
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