全科医生抑郁症状治疗决策的定性探讨

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Alex Stallman, Nicola Sheeran, Mark Boschen
{"title":"全科医生抑郁症状治疗决策的定性探讨","authors":"Alex Stallman,&nbsp;Nicola Sheeran,&nbsp;Mark Boschen","doi":"10.1177/0272989X231166009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>General practitioners (GPs) provide the most antidepressant prescriptions and psychologist referrals in Australia, yet little is known about how they decide between treatments for depressive symptoms.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>This study examined the decision cues that GPs use when deciding how to treat depressive symptoms and the meaning they attribute to these associations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Structured interviews were conducted with 16 Australian GPs in a \"think-aloud\" verbal protocol analysis format. The transcripts were analyzed using content coding and thematic analysis, informed by the dual processes model of decision making.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants associated prescribing antidepressants with severe depressive symptoms, and psychologist referrals were the preferred initial treatment provided patients were willing to engage. Four main themes emerged from the thematic analysis: 1) psychologist as default, 2) the risk is just too high, 3) medication as supplement, and 4) drivers of antidepressants. Contrary to previous findings, participants identified a strong heuristic association between depressive symptoms and psychologist referral. Antidepressant prescription was associated with severe symptoms, higher risk, and a cluster of cues that lead them away from psychologist referral.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Participants demonstrated an oversensitivity to depressive symptom severity, associating psychologist referrals with subclinical depressive symptoms, and starting antidepressants for suicidal ideation and significant functional decline.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Psychologist referrals were the default preference for GPs when treating depressive symptoms, whereas antidepressants were reserved for patients with elevated risk from severe depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation.Participants' conceptualization of depression severity was oversensitive compared with treatment guidelines.Contrary to treatment guidelines, GPs in this study demonstrated their discomfort for referring patients with suicidal ideation to a psychologist without initiating antidepressants.GPs should consider whether patients within their mild to moderate assessment range can be treated exclusively with more cost-effective means than psychological therapy such as e-mental health programs, guided self-help, and lifestyle changes alone.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":"43 4","pages":"498-507"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10164610/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Qualitative Exploration of General Practitioners' Treatment Decision-Making for Depressive Symptoms.\",\"authors\":\"Alex Stallman,&nbsp;Nicola Sheeran,&nbsp;Mark Boschen\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0272989X231166009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>General practitioners (GPs) provide the most antidepressant prescriptions and psychologist referrals in Australia, yet little is known about how they decide between treatments for depressive symptoms.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>This study examined the decision cues that GPs use when deciding how to treat depressive symptoms and the meaning they attribute to these associations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Structured interviews were conducted with 16 Australian GPs in a \\\"think-aloud\\\" verbal protocol analysis format. The transcripts were analyzed using content coding and thematic analysis, informed by the dual processes model of decision making.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants associated prescribing antidepressants with severe depressive symptoms, and psychologist referrals were the preferred initial treatment provided patients were willing to engage. Four main themes emerged from the thematic analysis: 1) psychologist as default, 2) the risk is just too high, 3) medication as supplement, and 4) drivers of antidepressants. Contrary to previous findings, participants identified a strong heuristic association between depressive symptoms and psychologist referral. Antidepressant prescription was associated with severe symptoms, higher risk, and a cluster of cues that lead them away from psychologist referral.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Participants demonstrated an oversensitivity to depressive symptom severity, associating psychologist referrals with subclinical depressive symptoms, and starting antidepressants for suicidal ideation and significant functional decline.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Psychologist referrals were the default preference for GPs when treating depressive symptoms, whereas antidepressants were reserved for patients with elevated risk from severe depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation.Participants' conceptualization of depression severity was oversensitive compared with treatment guidelines.Contrary to treatment guidelines, GPs in this study demonstrated their discomfort for referring patients with suicidal ideation to a psychologist without initiating antidepressants.GPs should consider whether patients within their mild to moderate assessment range can be treated exclusively with more cost-effective means than psychological therapy such as e-mental health programs, guided self-help, and lifestyle changes alone.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49839,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Decision Making\",\"volume\":\"43 4\",\"pages\":\"498-507\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10164610/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Decision Making\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X231166009\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X231166009","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在澳大利亚,全科医生(gp)提供了最多的抗抑郁药物处方和心理学家推荐,但他们如何决定治疗抑郁症状的方法却鲜为人知。目的:本研究考察了全科医生在决定如何治疗抑郁症状时使用的决策线索,以及他们赋予这些关联的意义。方法:以“有声思考”口头协议分析格式对16名澳大利亚全科医生进行结构化访谈。在决策的双重过程模型的指导下,使用内容编码和主题分析对转录本进行分析。结果:参与者将处方抗抑郁药与严重抑郁症状联系起来,如果患者愿意参与,心理学家推荐是首选的初始治疗。从主题分析中出现了四个主要主题:1)心理学家默认,2)风险太高,3)药物作为补充,4)抗抑郁药的驱动因素。与先前的研究结果相反,参与者发现抑郁症状与心理医生转诊之间存在强烈的启发式关联。抗抑郁药处方与严重的症状、更高的风险以及一系列导致他们不去看心理医生的线索有关。结论:参与者表现出对抑郁症状严重程度的过度敏感,将心理医生转诊与亚临床抑郁症状联系起来,并因自杀意念和显著的功能衰退而开始服用抗抑郁药物。重点:心理医生是全科医生在治疗抑郁症状时的默认首选,而抗抑郁药是为严重抑郁症状和自杀意念风险升高的患者保留的。与治疗指南相比,参与者对抑郁严重程度的概念化过于敏感。与治疗指南相反,在这项研究中,全科医生对将有自杀念头的患者转介给心理学家而不开始服用抗抑郁药表示不舒服。全科医生应考虑在轻度至中度评估范围内的患者是否可以采用比心理治疗(如电子心理健康项目、指导自助和单独改变生活方式)更具成本效益的方法进行治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

A Qualitative Exploration of General Practitioners' Treatment Decision-Making for Depressive Symptoms.

A Qualitative Exploration of General Practitioners' Treatment Decision-Making for Depressive Symptoms.

A Qualitative Exploration of General Practitioners' Treatment Decision-Making for Depressive Symptoms.

A Qualitative Exploration of General Practitioners' Treatment Decision-Making for Depressive Symptoms.

Background: General practitioners (GPs) provide the most antidepressant prescriptions and psychologist referrals in Australia, yet little is known about how they decide between treatments for depressive symptoms.

Aims: This study examined the decision cues that GPs use when deciding how to treat depressive symptoms and the meaning they attribute to these associations.

Methods: Structured interviews were conducted with 16 Australian GPs in a "think-aloud" verbal protocol analysis format. The transcripts were analyzed using content coding and thematic analysis, informed by the dual processes model of decision making.

Results: Participants associated prescribing antidepressants with severe depressive symptoms, and psychologist referrals were the preferred initial treatment provided patients were willing to engage. Four main themes emerged from the thematic analysis: 1) psychologist as default, 2) the risk is just too high, 3) medication as supplement, and 4) drivers of antidepressants. Contrary to previous findings, participants identified a strong heuristic association between depressive symptoms and psychologist referral. Antidepressant prescription was associated with severe symptoms, higher risk, and a cluster of cues that lead them away from psychologist referral.

Conclusions: Participants demonstrated an oversensitivity to depressive symptom severity, associating psychologist referrals with subclinical depressive symptoms, and starting antidepressants for suicidal ideation and significant functional decline.

Highlights: Psychologist referrals were the default preference for GPs when treating depressive symptoms, whereas antidepressants were reserved for patients with elevated risk from severe depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation.Participants' conceptualization of depression severity was oversensitive compared with treatment guidelines.Contrary to treatment guidelines, GPs in this study demonstrated their discomfort for referring patients with suicidal ideation to a psychologist without initiating antidepressants.GPs should consider whether patients within their mild to moderate assessment range can be treated exclusively with more cost-effective means than psychological therapy such as e-mental health programs, guided self-help, and lifestyle changes alone.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
×
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