Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Stallman A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10164610 | biostudies-literature | 2023 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Stallman Alex A Sheeran Nicola N Boschen Mark M

Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making 20230414 4

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Aims</h4>This study examined the decision cues that GPs use when deciding how to treat depressive symptoms and the meaning they attribute to these associations.<h4>Methods</h4>Structured interviews were conducted with 16 Australian GPs in a "think-aloud" verbal protocol analys ...[more]

PMID: 37057384

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPain medicines are widely prescribed by general practitioners (GPs) when managing people with low back pain (LBP), but little is known about what drives decisions to prescribe these medicines.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate what influences GPs' decision to prescribe pain medicines for LBP.DesignQualitative study with in-depth interviews.SettingAustralian primary care.ParticipantsWe interviewed 25 GPs practising in Australia experienced in managing LBP (mean (SD) age 53.4 (9.1) years, mean (SD) years of experience: 24.6 (9.3), 36% female). GPs were provided three vignettes describing common LBP presentations (acute exacerbation of chronic LBP, subacute sciatica and chronic LBP) and were asked to think aloud how they would manage the cases described in the vignettes.Data analysisWe summarised GP's choices of pain medicines for each vignette using content analysis and used framework analysis to investigate factors that affected GP's decision-making.ResultsGPs more commonly prescribed opioid analgesics. Anticonvulsants and antidepressants were also commonly prescribed depending on the presentation described in the vignette. GP participants made decisions about what pain medicines to prescribe for LBP largely based on previous experiences, including their own personal experiences of LBP, rather than guidelines. The choice of pain medicine was influenced by a range of clinical factors, more commonly the patient's pathoanatomical diagnosis. While many adhered to principles of judicious use of pain medicines, polypharmacy scenarios were also common. Concerns about drug-seeking behaviour, adverse effects, stigma around opioid analgesics and pressure from regulators also shaped their decision-making process.ConclusionsWe identified several aspects of decision-making that help explain the current profile of pain medicines prescribed for LBP by GPs. Themes identified by our study could inform future implementation strategies to improve the quality use of medicines for LBP.

Project description:BackgroundMedical decision-making relies partly on the probability of disease. Current recommendations for the management of common diseases are based increasingly on scores that use arbitrary probability thresholds.ObjectiveTo assess decision-making in pharyngitis and appendicitis using a set of clinical vignettes, and the extent to which management is congruent with the true probability of having the disease.DesignWe developed twenty-four clinical vignettes with clinical presentations corresponding to specific probabilities of having disease defined by McIsaac (pharyngitis) or Alvarado (appendicitis) scores. Each participant answered four randomly selected web-based vignettes.ParticipantsGeneral practitioners (GP) working in primary care structures in Switzerland and the USA.Main measuresA comparison between the GP's management decision according to the true probability of having the disease and to the GP's estimated probability, investigating the GP's ability to estimate probability of disease.Key resultsThe mean age of the GPs was 48 years (SD 12) and 66% were men. The correlation between the GP's clinical management decision based on the vignette and the recommendations was stronger for appendicitis than pharyngitis (kw = 0.74, 95% CI 0.70-0.78 vs. kw = 0.66, 95% CI 0.62-0.71). On the other hand, the association between the clinical management decision and the probability of disease estimated by GPs was more congruent with recommendations for pharyngitis than appendicitis (kw = 0.70, 95% CI 0.66-0.73 vs. 0.61, 95% CI 0.56-0.66). Only a minority of GPs correctly estimated the probability of disease (29% for appendicitis and 39% for pharyngitis).ConclusionsDespite the fact that general practitioners often misestimate the probability of disease, their management decisions are usually in line with recommendations. This means that they use other approaches, perhaps more subjective, to make decisions, such as clinical judgment or reasoning that integrate factors other than just the risk of the disease.

Project description:BackgroundPsychosocial problems in children and youth are common and may negatively impact their lives and the lives of their families. Since general practitioners (GPs) play a crucial role in detecting and intervening in such problems, it is clinically necessary to improve our insight into their clinical decision-making (CDM). The objective of this study was to explore which mechanisms underlie GPs' everyday CDM and their options for management or referral.Material and methodsThis was a mixed methods study in which qualitative (interview substudy) and quantitative (online survey substudy) data were collected from GPs. Using a question framework and vignettes representative of clinical practice, GPs' CDM was explored. GPs were selected by means of an academic research network and purposive sampling. Data collection continued in constant comparison between both substudies. Using grounded theory, data from both substudies were triangulated into a flowchart consisting of mechanisms and management/referral options.ResultsCDM-mechanisms were divided into three groups. GP-related mechanisms were GPs' primary approach of the problem (somatically or psychosocially) and their self-assessed competence to solve the problem based on interest in and knowledge about youth mental health care. Mechanisms related to the child and its social context included GPs' assessment whether there was psychiatric (co)morbidity, their sense of self-limitedness of the problem and assessed complexity of the problem. Whether GPs' had existing collaboration agreements with youth care providers and how they experienced their collaboration were collaboration-related mechanisms.ConclusionThe current study contributes to a relatively unexplored research area by revealing GP's in-depth thought processes regarding their CDM. However, existing research in this area supports the identified CDM mechanisms. Future initiatives should focus on validating CDM mechanisms in a larger population. If confirmed, mechanisms could be integrated into GP training and may offer guidelines for regulating proper access to mental health care services.

Dataset Information

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

Background

Aims

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Highlights

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets