Dataset Information

Differing mental health practice among general practitioners, private psychiatrists and public psychiatrists.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Providing care for mental health problems concerns General Practitioners (GPs), Private Psychiatrists (PrPs) and Public Psychiatrists (PuPs). As patient distribution and patterns of practice among these professionals are not well known, a survey was planned prior to a re-organisation of mental health services in an area close to Paris

Methods

All GPs (n = 492), PrPs (n = 82) and PuPs (n = 78) in the South-Yvelines area in France were informed of the implementation of a local mental health program. Practitioners interested in taking part were invited to include prospectively all patients with mental health problem they saw over an 8-day period and to complete a 6-month retrospective questionnaire on their mental health practice. 180 GPs (36.6%), 45 PrPs (54.9%) and 63 PuPs (84.0%) responded.

Results

GPs and PrPs were very similar but very different from PuPs for the proportion of patients with anxious or depressive disorders (70% v. 65% v. 38%, p < .001), psychotic disorders (5% v. 7% v. 30%, p < .001), previous psychiatric hospitalization (22% v. 26 v. 61%, p < .001) and receiving disability allowance (16% v. 18% v. 52%, p < .001). GPs had fewer patients with long-standing psychiatric disorders than PrPs and PuPs (52%, 64% v. 63%, p < .001). Time-lapse between consultations was longest for GPs, intermediate for PuPs and shortest for PrPs (36 days v. 26 v. 18, p < .001). Access to care had been delayed longer for Psychiatrists (PrPs, PuPs) than for GPs (61% v. 53% v. 25%, p < .001). GPs and PuPs frequently felt a need for collaboration for their patients, PrPs rarely (42% v. 61%. v. 10%, p < .001). Satisfaction with mental health practice was low for all categories of physicians (42.6% encountered difficulties hospitalizing patients and 61.4% had patients they would prefer not to cater for). GPs more often reported unsatisfactory relationships with mental health professionals than did PrPs and PuPs (54% v. 15% v. 8%, p < .001).

Conclusion

GP patients with mental health problems are very similar to patients of private psychiatrists; there is a lack of the collaboration felt to be necessary, because of psychiatrists' workload, and because GPs have specific needs in this respect. The "Yvelines-Sud Mental Health Network" has been created to enhance collaboration.

SUBMITTER: Younes N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1266376 | biostudies-literature | 2005 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Differing mental health practice among general practitioners, private psychiatrists and public psychiatrists.

Younès N N Hardy-Bayle M C MC Falissard B B Kovess V V Chaillet M P MP Gasquet I I

BMC public health 20051007

<h4>Background</h4>Providing care for mental health problems concerns General Practitioners (GPs), Private Psychiatrists (PrPs) and Public Psychiatrists (PuPs). As patient distribution and patterns of practice among these professionals are not well known, a survey was planned prior to a re-organisation of mental health services in an area close to Paris<h4>Methods</h4>All GPs (n = 492), PrPs (n = 82) and PuPs (n = 78) in the South-Yvelines area in France were informed of the implementation of a ...[more]

PMID: 16212666

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Common mental health problems are mainly treated in primary care settings and collaboration with mental health services is needed. Prior to re-organisation of the mental health care offer in a geographical area, a study was organized: 1) to evaluate GPs' opinions on their day-to-day practice with Patients with Mental Health Problems (PMHP) and on relationships with Mental Health Professionals (MHPro); 2) to identify factors associated with perceived need for collaboration with MHPro and with actual collaboration. METHODS: All GPs in the South Yvelines area in France (n = 492) were informed of the implementation of a local mental health program. GPs interested in taking part (n = 180) were invited to complete a satisfaction questionnaire on their practice in the field of Mental Health and to include prospectively all PMHP consultants over an 8-day period (n = 1519). For each PMHP, data was collected on demographic and clinical profile, and on needs (met v. unmet) for collaboration with MHPro. RESULTS: A majority of GPs rated PMHP as requiring more care (83.4%), more time (92.3%), more frequent consultations (64.0%) and as being more difficult to refer (87.7%) than other patients. A minority of GPs had a satisfactory relationship with private psychiatrists (49.5%), public psychiatrists (35%) and social workers (27.8%). 53.9% had a less satisfactory relationship with MHPro than with other physicians. Needs for collaboration with a MHPro were more often felt in caring for PMHP who were young, not in employment, with mental health problems lasting for more than one year, with a history of psychiatric hospitalization, and showing reluctance to talk of psychological problems and to consult a MHPro. Needs for collaboration were more often met among PMHP with past psychiatric consultation or hospitalization and when the patient was not reluctant to consult a MHPro. Where needs were not met, GP would opt for the classic procedure of mental health referral for only 31.3% of their PMHP. CONCLUSION: GPs need targeted collaboration with MHPro to support their management of PMHP, whom they are willing to care for without systematic referral to specialists as the major therapeutic option.

Project description:BackgroundPrimary care improvement is the cornerstone of current reforms. Mental disorders (MDs) are a leading cause of morbidity worldwide and widespread in industrialised countries. MDs are treated mainly in primary care by general practitioners (GPs), even though the latter ability to detect, diagnose, and treat patients with MDs is often considered unsatisfactory. This article examines GPs' management of MDs in an effort to acquire more information regarding means by which GPs deal with MD cases, impact of such cases on their practices, factors that enable or hinder MD management, and patient-management strategies.MethodsThis study employs a mixed-method approach with emphasis on qualitative investigation. Based on a previous survey of 398 GPs in Quebec, Canada, 60 GPs representing a variety of practice settings were selected for further study. A 10-minute-long questionnaire comprising 27 items was administered, and 70-minute-long interviews were conducted. Quantitative (SPSS) and qualitative (NVivo) analyses were performed.ResultsAt least 20% of GP visits were MD-related. GPs were comfortable managing common MDs, but not serious MDs. GPs' based their treatment of MDs on pharmacotherapy, support therapy, and psycho-education. They used clinical intuition with few clinical tools, and closely followed their patients with MDs. Practice features (salary or hourly fees payment; psycho-social teams on-site; strong informal networks), and GPs' individual characteristics (continuing medical education; exposure and interest in MDs; traits like empathy) favoured MD management. Collaboration with psychologists and psychiatrists was considered key to good MD management. Limited access to specialists, system fragmentation, and underdeveloped group practice and shared-care models were impediments. MD management was seen as burdensome because it required more time, flexibility, and emotional investment. Strategies exist to reduce the burden (one-problem-per-visit rule; longer time slots). GPs found MD practice rewarding as patients were seen as grateful and more complying with medical recommendations compared to other patients, generally leading to positive outcomes.ConclusionsTo improve MD management, this study highlights the importance of extending multidisciplinary GP practice settings with salary or hourly fee payment; access to psychotherapeutic and psychiatric expertise; and case-discussion training involving local networks of GPs and MD specialists that encourage both knowledge transfer and shared care.

Project description:BackgroundHarnessing of private sector resources could play an important role in efforts to promote universal access to safe obstetric care including caesarean delivery in low- and middle-income countries especially in rural contexts but any such attempt would need to ensure that the care provided is appropriate and patterns of inappropriate care, such as high caesarean delivery rates, are not reproduced for the entire population.ObjectiveTo examine the contracting arrangements for using private general practitioners to provide caesarean delivery services in rural district hospitals in South Africa.MethodWe utilised a mixed-method study design to examine the contracting models adopted by five rural district hospitals in the Western Cape, South Africa. Between April 2021 and March 2022, we collected routine data from delivery and theatre registers to capture the profile of deliveries and utilisation of contracted private GPs. We also conducted 23 semi-structured qualitative interviews with key stakeholders to explore perceptions of the contracting arrangements.ResultsAll five hospitals varied in the level of use of private general practitioners and the contracting models (three private in-sourcing models - via locum agencies, sessional contracts, and tender contracts) used to engage them. Qualitative interviews revealed insights related to the need for flexibility in the use of contractual models to meet local contextual needs, cost implications and administrative burden.ConclusionStructured appropriately, private public partnerships can fill important gaps in human resources in rural district hospitals. Policy makers should look to developing a 'contracting framework' which requires compliance with a set of underlying principles but allows for flexibility in developing context specific contracting arrangements. These underlying principles should include a 'risk' based delivery model, adherence to public sector- evidence-based protocols, time-based rather than per delivery/type of delivery remuneration models, group liability arrangements, and processes to monitor outcomes.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Involvement of traditional health practitioners (THPs) in the form of collaboration with the formal health care system is suggested to improve the pathways to mental health care in Kenya, yet understanding of the current traditional practice and THPs' perspectives is lacking. The aim of this study was to explore the views of THPs with respect to their mental health practice. METHODS:This study qualitatively explored the views of THPs, using four focus group discussions (FDGs) each consisting of 8-10 traditional and faith healers, resulting in a total of 36 participants. Thematic content analysis using a grounded theory approach was performed using QSR NVivo 10. Emerging topics were identified and examined by re-reading the transcripts several times and constantly re-sorting the material. RESULTS:Four themes that reflect THPs' mental health practice perspectives emerged as follows: 1) Categorization of mental illness; 2) Diagnostics in traditional mental health practice; 3) Treatments and challenges in current traditional mental health practice; and 4) Solutions to improve traditional mental health practice. CONCLUSIONS:These themes provide insight into the perspectives of Kenyan traditional and faith healers on their mental health practice, in an attempt to offer a meaningful contribution to the debate on collaboration between informal and formal health care providers in improving mental health services in Kenya. Furthermore, the presented challenges and solutions can inform policy makers in their task to improve and scale up mental health services in resource-poor areas in Kenya. Addressing these issues would be a first step towards understanding the solid foundation of traditional medicine that is necessary before collaboration can be successfully attempted. Further research is also recommended to assess patients' needs and explore potential forms of collaboration, in order to achieve sustainable improvement in the mental health care pathways for patients.

Project description:BackgroundPolicy initiatives to improve retention of the rural health workforce have relied primarily on evidence for rural doctors, most of whom practice under a private business model. Much of the literature for rural allied health (AH) workforce focuses on the public sector. The AH professions are diverse, with mixed public, private or combined practice settings. This study explores sector differences in factors affecting retention of rural AH professionals.MethodsThis study compared respondents from the 2008 Rural Allied Health Workforce (RAHW) survey recruiting all AH professionals in rural New South Wales. Comparisons between public (n = 833) and private (n = 756) groups were undertaken using Chi square analysis to measure association for demographics, job satisfaction and intention to leave. The final section of the RAHW survey comprised 33 questions relating to retention. A factor analysis was conducted for each cohort. Factor reliability was assessed and retained factors were included in a binary logistic regression analysis for each cohort predicting intention to leave.ResultsSix factors were identified: professional isolation, participation in community, clinical demand, taking time away from work, resources and 'specialist generalist' work. Factors differed slightly between groups. A seventh factor (management) was present only in the public cohort. Gender was not a significant predictor of intention to leave. Age group was the strongest predictor of intention to leave with younger and older groups being significantly more likely to leave than middle aged.In univariate logistic analysis (after adjusting for age group), the ability to get away from work did not predict intention to leave in either group. In multivariate analysis, high clinical demand predicted intention to leave in both the public (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.08, 1.83) and private (OR = 1.61, 95% CI = 1.15, 2.25) cohorts. Professional isolation (OR = 1.39. 95% CI = 1.11, 1.75) and Participation in community (OR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.13, 2.19) also contributed to the model in the public cohort.ConclusionsThis paper demonstrates differences between those working in public versus private sectors and suggests that effectiveness of policy initiatives may be improved through better targeting.

Dataset Information

Differing mental health practice among general practitioners, private psychiatrists and public psychiatrists.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Differing mental health practice among general practitioners, private psychiatrists and public psychiatrists.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets