Systematic review of the effect of on-site mental health professionals on the clinical behaviour of general practitioners.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
To review the published literature concerning the effects of on-site mental health professionals on general practitioners' management of mental health.Design
Systematic review of controlled trials.Setting
Primary care.Participants
General practitioners and mental health professionals.Main outcome measures
Consultation rates, prescribing of psychotropics, and referrals to secondary care mental health services by general practitioners.Results
The effect of on-site mental health professionals on consultation rates was inconsistent. Referral to a mental health professional reduced the likelihood of a patient receiving a prescription for psychotropics or being referred to secondary care, although the effects were not consistent. An on-site mental health professional did not alter prescribing and referral behaviour towards patients in the wider practice population.Conclusions
The secondary effects of mental health professionals on the clinical behaviour of general practitioners are comparatively modest and inconsistent and seem to be restricted to patients directly under the care of the mental health professional.
SUBMITTER: Bower P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC27305 | biostudies-literature | 2000 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Systematic review of the effect of on-site mental health professionals on the clinical behaviour of general practitioners.
BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20000301 7235
<h4>Objectives</h4>To review the published literature concerning the effects of on-site mental health professionals on general practitioners' management of mental health.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review of controlled trials.<h4>Setting</h4>Primary care.<h4>Participants</h4>General practitioners and mental health professionals.<h4>Main outcome measures</h4>Consultation rates, prescribing of psychotropics, and referrals to secondary care mental health services by general practitioners.<h4>Results< ...[more]
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.
| S-EPMC1131897 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundSedentary behaviour is when someone is awake, in a sitting, lying or reclining posture and is an independent risk factor for multiple causes of morbidity and mortality. A dose-response relationship has been demonstrated, whereby increasing sedentary time corresponds with increasing mortality rate. This study aimed to identify current levels of sedentary behaviour among General Practitioners (GPs), by examining and synthesising how sedentary behaviour has been measured in the primary care literature.MethodsA systematic review was conducted to identify studies relating to levels of sedentary behaviour among GPs. Searches were performed using Medline®, Embase®, PscycINFO, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library, from inception of databases until January 2020, with a subsequent search of grey literature. Articles were assessed for quality and bias, with extraction of relevant data.ResultsThe search criteria returned 1707 studies. Thirty four full texts were reviewed and 2 studies included in the final review. Both were cross-sectional surveys using self-reported estimation of sedentary time within the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). Keohane et al. examined GP trainees and GP trainers in Ireland. 60% reported spending in excess of 7 h sitting each day, 24% between 4 and 7 h, and 16% less than or equal to 4 h. Suija et al. examined female GPs in Estonia. The mean reported daily sitting time was 6 h and 36 min, with 56% sitting for over 6 h per day. Both studies were of satisfactory methodological quality but had a high risk of bias.ConclusionThere is a paucity of research examining current levels of sedentary behaviour among GPs. Objective data is needed to determine GPs' current levels of sedentary behaviour, particularly in light of the increase in remote consulting as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
| S-EPMC7779649 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFrench general practitioners (GPs) refer their patients with major depression to psychiatrists or for psychotherapy at particularly low rates.ObjectivesThis qualitative study aims to explore general practitioners' (GP) opinions about psychotherapy, their relationships with mental health professionals, their perceptions of their role and that of psychiatrists in treating depression, and the relations between these factors and the GPs' strategies for managing depression.MethodsIn 2011, in-depth interviews based on a semi-structured interview guide were conducted with 32 GPs practicing in southeastern France. Verbatim transcripts were examined by analyzing their thematic content.ResultsWe identified three profiles of physicians according to their opinions and practices about treatment strategies for depression: pro-pharmacological treatment, pro-psychotherapy and those with mixed practices. Most participants considered their relationships with psychiatrists unsatisfactory, would like more and better collaboration with them and shared the same concept of management in general practice. This concept was based both on the values and principles of practice shared by GPs and on their strong differentiation of their management practices from those of psychiatrists.ConclusionSeveral attitudes and values common to GPs might contribute to their low rate of referrals for psychotherapy in France: strong occupational identity, substantial variations in GPs' attitudes and practices regarding depression treatment strategies, representations sometimes unfavorable toward psychiatrists. Actions to develop a common culture and improve cooperation between GPs and psychiatrists are essential. They include systems of collaborative care and the development of interdisciplinary training common to GPs and psychiatrists practicing in the same area.
| S-EPMC5791973 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundProviding 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 ParisMethodsAll 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.ResultsGPs 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).ConclusionGP 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.
| S-EPMC1266376 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate general practitioners' (GPs) experiences in managing patients with intellectual disabilities (ID) and mental and behavioural problems (MBP).DesignQualitative study using in-depth interviews.SettingGeneral practice in Hedmark county, Norway.Participants10 GPs were qualitatively interviewed about their professional experience regarding patients with ID and MBP. Data were analysed by all authors using systematic text condensation.ResultsThe participants' knowledge was primarily experience-based and collaboration with specialists seemed to be individual rather than systemic. The GPs provided divergent attitudes to referral, treatment, collaboration, regular health checks and home visits.ConclusionsGPs are in a position to provide evidence-based and individual treatment for both psychological and somatic problems among patients with ID. However, they do not appear to be making use of evidence-based treatment decisions. The GPs feel that they are left alone in decision-making, and find it difficult to find trustworthy collaborative partners. The findings in this study provide useful information for further research in the field.
| S-EPMC3612780 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite recent interest in the mental health benefits of increasing physical activity (PA) and reducing sedentary behaviour (SB), little is known about PA and SB counselling provided by mental health professionals. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the attitudes and practices of mental health professionals in recommending more PA and less SB to their clients.MethodsQuantitative data were collected using a modified version of the Exercise in Mental Illness Questionnaire in a sample of 17 Australian mental health professionals. The collected data were reported using percentages (for categorical data) and means and standard deviations (for numerical data). Additionally, in focus group discussions, 10 mental health professionals provided in-depth information about their clinical practice, facilitators, and perceived barriers in recommending more PA and less SB. They also provided suggestions on how to potentially improve their PA and SB counselling practices. The focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsOnly 35.3% of participants have undergone formal training in recommending PA in the treatment of mental illness. Most participants (64.7%) ranked PA counselling among the top three types of mental health treatment. All participants reported recommending PA to their clients at least "occasionally", while 88% of them also provided SB counselling. However, the recommendations provided were usually not specific. The most commonly reported barriers for providing PA and SB counselling were a lack of knowledge and confidence. Participants also believed that, if they were more active themselves, they would be in a better position to recommend PA to their clients, by sharing their own experience of evidence-informed strategies designed to increase PA and reduce SB.ConclusionThe findings of this study indicate that mental health professionals commonly provide generic PA and SB counselling to their clients. PA and SB counselling in the mental health setting could be improved by: including training on PA and SB counselling in formal education and continued professional training for mental health professionals; implementing interventions to increase PA and reduce SB among mental health professionals themselves; and ensuring support from an exercise or PA promotion specialist as a part of a multi-disciplinary approach to mental health care.
| S-EPMC8284800 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMental illness has brought great economic burden related to misdiagnosis by non-mental health professionals in general hospitals. The aim of this study was to explore non-mental health professionals' conceptions related to the identification of mental illness and perceived treatments, first aid and prognosis.MethodsIn 2014-2015, we presented 1123 non-mental health professionals from six general hospitals in Hunan Province with one of three vignettes describing a person with schizophrenia, depression, or generalized anxiety disorder. Identification rates, beliefs about various interventions, best methods, and the prognosis with or without treatment were measured.ResultsLess than 60% of the non-mental health professionals could identify the mental disorders correctly. Psychiatrists and psychologists were considered to be the people who would be most helpful in all vignettes. Over 70% of participants identified the correct medication for each vignette. Participants gave higher ratings to lifestyle interventions than to psychological and medical interventions, especially in the depression and generalized anxiety disorder vignettes. For the question about how the person could best be helped, about half of the participants rated listening or talking with the person more highly than accompanying the person to professional help or encouraging the person to visit a psychiatrist or psychologist. Participants believed that, with professional help, the people in the vignettes would fully recover but that problems would probably reoccur and that, without professional help, the people described would get worse.ConclusionsThe beliefs that non-mental health professionals hold about mental disorders are inadequate to provide appropriate help. There is an urgent need for mental health education campaigns to improve non-mental health professionals' mental health knowledge in mainland China in order to provide better support for mental health service users.
| S-EPMC5498045 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSimilar to the general public, mental health professionals sometimes also have negative attitudes towards individuals with mental illness; which could ultimately affect the quality of care received by the patients. This study aims to explore attitudes to mental illness among mental health professionals in Singapore; make comparisons with the general population; and investigate the significant correlates.MethodsA cross-sectional design was used. Eligible participants were recruited from the Institute of Mental Health, Singapore. Attitudes to mental illness among the mental health professionals were measured using an adapted 26-item Attitudes to Mental Illness questionnaire (AMI). An earlier study amongst the general population in Singapore had used the same tool; however, factor analysis suggested a 20-item, 4-factor structure (AMI-SG) was the best fit. This 4-factor structure was applied among the current sample of mental health professionals to allow comparisons between the professionals and the general population. Data were collected through an online survey tool 'Questionpro' from February to April 2016, and 379 participants were included in the current analysis. Attitudes to mental illness among these professionals were compared to those of the general population, which were captured as part of a national study conducted from March 2014 to April 2015.ResultsThe 20-item, 4-factor structure AMI-SG derived from the general population was applicable among the mental health professionals in Singapore. Compared to the general population, mental health professionals had significantly more positive attitudes to mental illness; however their scores on 'social distancing' did not differ from the general population. Indian ethnicity was negatively associated with 'social distancing' and 'social restrictiveness' among the professionals; while higher education was negatively related to 'prejudice and misconception'. Compared to nurses, doctors showed significantly more positive attitudes on 'social restrictiveness' and 'prejudice and misconception'. Having family or close friends diagnosed with mental illness was negatively associated with 'social distancing' among the professionals.ConclusionThe AMI-SG is an effective tool to measure attitudes to mental illness among mental health professionals in Singapore. Although the professionals had significantly more positive attitudes to mental illness than the general public in Singapore, their attitudes on 'social distancing' resembled closely that of the general public. Professionals tended to have more negative attitudes if they were nurses, less educated, and of Chinese ethnicity. More studies are needed to explore the underlying reasons for the differences and to generalize these findings among mental health professionals elsewhere.
| S-EPMC5690645 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: There have been few studies on the stigma associated with mental disorders among non-mental health professionals in general hospitals in China. This study seeks to explore mental health-related stigma and the desire for social distance among non-mental health professionals in general hospitals in Hunan Province in China. Methods: The study was carried out with 1123 non-mental health professionals in six general hospitals in Hunan Province by using a questionnaire with a case vignette describing either schizophrenia, depression, or generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Questions were asked about the attitudes of participants and other people towards individuals with mental disorders and the willingness to come into contact with them. Results: The people described in the vignette were considered dangerous by 84.4% of participants for schizophrenia, 72.0% of participants for depression, and 63.1% of participants for GAD. Besides being dangerous, people with schizophrenia were perceived as unpredictable and as the least suitable for voting for as a politician or employing. Around 50% of participants believed the problems described in the vignette were due to personal weakness. Over 70% of the non-mental health professionals were not willing to have the people described in the vignette marry into their family. The participants had gained their mental health-related knowledge mainly through the media, mostly from newspapers. Conclusions: The current study found a significant stigma towards individuals with mental disorders and a desire for social distance from such people among non-mental health professionals in general hospitals in Hunan Province. Anti-stigma interventions should focus on addressing non-mental health professionals' beliefs on dangerousness and unpredictability.
| S-EPMC6967835 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesIn the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, general practitioners (GPs) continue to face unprecedented challenges that affect their mental health. However, few studies have assessed the mental health status of GPs. This study aimed to provide preliminary understanding of stress, job burn-out and well-being levels among GPs to train and manage them during public health emergencies.DesignWe conducted a cross-sectional online self-report survey.SettingThe survey was conducted in Chongqing, China from July to August 2022.ParticipantsData were collected from 2145 GPs, with an effective response rate of 91.0%.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe main evaluation indicators were stress (Cohen's Perceived Stress Scale), job burn-out (Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey Scale) and well-being (WHO-5 Well-Being Index). Multiple linear regression analysis was used to compare the effect of different demographic characteristics on the impact of stress, job burn-out and decreased well-being.ResultsStress, job burn-out and decreased well-being were common among GPs. In this study, 59.7% experienced job burn-out, 76.1% experienced high levels of stress and 52.0% may have experienced depression. The main factors that influenced stress, burn-out and well-being were differences in age, working hours per week, title, part-time management work, work-life balance, sleep disorders, whether GPs received adequate recognition by patients and the work team and mental toughness (p<0.05).ConclusionThis survey is the first to investigate stress, job burn-out and well-being levels among local GPs in China during the COVID-19 pandemic. Curbing stress and job burn-out levels and ensuring well-being among GPs could be achieved by reducing paperwork, management work and working hours; promoting life and work balance; and increasing resilience among GPs. The findings provide a basis for policy-makers to formulate strategies for developing general practice.
| S-EPMC10689386 | biostudies-literature