Cargando…
GPs’ views on the use of depression screening and GP-targeted feedback: a qualitative study
PURPOSE: The first aim of this qualitative study was to identify general practitioners’ (GPs’) views on depression screening combined with GP-targeted feedback in primary care. The second aim was to determine the needs and preferences of GPs with respect to GP-targeted feedback to enhance the effica...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8528735/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33249538 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02703-2 |
_version_ | 1784586311418511360 |
---|---|
author | Braunschneider, Lea-Elena Lehmann, Marco Magaard, Julia Luise Seeralan, Tharanya Marx, Gabriella Eisele, Marion Scherer, Martin Löwe, Bernd Kohlmann, Sebastian |
author_facet | Braunschneider, Lea-Elena Lehmann, Marco Magaard, Julia Luise Seeralan, Tharanya Marx, Gabriella Eisele, Marion Scherer, Martin Löwe, Bernd Kohlmann, Sebastian |
author_sort | Braunschneider, Lea-Elena |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: The first aim of this qualitative study was to identify general practitioners’ (GPs’) views on depression screening combined with GP-targeted feedback in primary care. The second aim was to determine the needs and preferences of GPs with respect to GP-targeted feedback to enhance the efficacy of depression screening. METHODS: A semistructured qualitative interview was conducted with officially registered GPs in Hamburg (Germany). Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. An inductive approach was used to code the transcripts. RESULTS: Nine GPs (27 to 70 years; 5 male) from Hamburg, Germany, participated. Regarding depression screening combined with GP-targeted feedback, five thematic groups were identified: application of screening; screening and patient–physician relationships; GPs’ attitudes towards screening; benefits and concerns related to screening; and GPs’ needs and preferences regarding feedback. While the negative aspects of screening can be described in rather general terms (e.g., screening determines the mental health competence, screening threatens the doctor–patient relationship, revealing questions harm the patients), its advantages were very specific (e.g., promoting the identification of undetected cases, relief of the daily workload, wider communication channel to reach more patients). Standardized GP-targeted feedback of the screening results was perceived as helpful and purposeful. GPs preferred feedback materials that eased their clinical workload (e.g., short text with visuals, pictures, or images). CONCLUSION: Addressing GPs’ needs is essential when implementing depression screening tools in clinical practice. To overcome prejudices and enhance the efficacy of screening, further education for GPs on the purpose and application on depression screening may be needed. Standardized GP-targeted feedback in combination with depression screening could be the missing link to improve the detection of depression in primary care. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11136-020-02703-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8528735 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-85287352021-11-04 GPs’ views on the use of depression screening and GP-targeted feedback: a qualitative study Braunschneider, Lea-Elena Lehmann, Marco Magaard, Julia Luise Seeralan, Tharanya Marx, Gabriella Eisele, Marion Scherer, Martin Löwe, Bernd Kohlmann, Sebastian Qual Life Res Special Section: Feedback Tools PURPOSE: The first aim of this qualitative study was to identify general practitioners’ (GPs’) views on depression screening combined with GP-targeted feedback in primary care. The second aim was to determine the needs and preferences of GPs with respect to GP-targeted feedback to enhance the efficacy of depression screening. METHODS: A semistructured qualitative interview was conducted with officially registered GPs in Hamburg (Germany). Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. An inductive approach was used to code the transcripts. RESULTS: Nine GPs (27 to 70 years; 5 male) from Hamburg, Germany, participated. Regarding depression screening combined with GP-targeted feedback, five thematic groups were identified: application of screening; screening and patient–physician relationships; GPs’ attitudes towards screening; benefits and concerns related to screening; and GPs’ needs and preferences regarding feedback. While the negative aspects of screening can be described in rather general terms (e.g., screening determines the mental health competence, screening threatens the doctor–patient relationship, revealing questions harm the patients), its advantages were very specific (e.g., promoting the identification of undetected cases, relief of the daily workload, wider communication channel to reach more patients). Standardized GP-targeted feedback of the screening results was perceived as helpful and purposeful. GPs preferred feedback materials that eased their clinical workload (e.g., short text with visuals, pictures, or images). CONCLUSION: Addressing GPs’ needs is essential when implementing depression screening tools in clinical practice. To overcome prejudices and enhance the efficacy of screening, further education for GPs on the purpose and application on depression screening may be needed. Standardized GP-targeted feedback in combination with depression screening could be the missing link to improve the detection of depression in primary care. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11136-020-02703-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2020-11-29 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8528735/ /pubmed/33249538 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02703-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Special Section: Feedback Tools Braunschneider, Lea-Elena Lehmann, Marco Magaard, Julia Luise Seeralan, Tharanya Marx, Gabriella Eisele, Marion Scherer, Martin Löwe, Bernd Kohlmann, Sebastian GPs’ views on the use of depression screening and GP-targeted feedback: a qualitative study |
title | GPs’ views on the use of depression screening and GP-targeted feedback: a qualitative study |
title_full | GPs’ views on the use of depression screening and GP-targeted feedback: a qualitative study |
title_fullStr | GPs’ views on the use of depression screening and GP-targeted feedback: a qualitative study |
title_full_unstemmed | GPs’ views on the use of depression screening and GP-targeted feedback: a qualitative study |
title_short | GPs’ views on the use of depression screening and GP-targeted feedback: a qualitative study |
title_sort | gps’ views on the use of depression screening and gp-targeted feedback: a qualitative study |
topic | Special Section: Feedback Tools |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8528735/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33249538 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02703-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT braunschneiderleaelena gpsviewsontheuseofdepressionscreeningandgptargetedfeedbackaqualitativestudy AT lehmannmarco gpsviewsontheuseofdepressionscreeningandgptargetedfeedbackaqualitativestudy AT magaardjulialuise gpsviewsontheuseofdepressionscreeningandgptargetedfeedbackaqualitativestudy AT seeralantharanya gpsviewsontheuseofdepressionscreeningandgptargetedfeedbackaqualitativestudy AT marxgabriella gpsviewsontheuseofdepressionscreeningandgptargetedfeedbackaqualitativestudy AT eiselemarion gpsviewsontheuseofdepressionscreeningandgptargetedfeedbackaqualitativestudy AT scherermartin gpsviewsontheuseofdepressionscreeningandgptargetedfeedbackaqualitativestudy AT lowebernd gpsviewsontheuseofdepressionscreeningandgptargetedfeedbackaqualitativestudy AT kohlmannsebastian gpsviewsontheuseofdepressionscreeningandgptargetedfeedbackaqualitativestudy |