Dataset Information

Talking about depression: a qualitative study of barriers to managing depression in people with long term conditions in primary care.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The risk of depression is increased in people with long term conditions (LTCs) and is associated with poorer patient outcomes for both the depressive illness and the LTC, but often remains undetected and poorly managed. The aim of this study was to identify and explore barriers to detecting and managing depression in primary care in people with two exemplar LTCs: diabetes and coronary heart disease (CHD).

Methods

Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with 19 healthcare professionals drawn predominately from primary care, along with 7 service users and 3 carers (n = 29). One focus group was then held with a set of 6 healthcare professionals and a set of 7 service users and 1 carer (n = 14). Interviews and the focus group were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed independently. The two data sets were then inspected for commonalities using a constant comparative method, leading to a final thematic framework used in this paper.

Results

Barriers to detecting and managing depression in people with LTCs in primary care exist: i) when practitioners in partnership with patients conceptualise depression as a common and understandable response to the losses associated with LTCs - depression in the presence of LTCs is normalised, militating against its recognition and treatment; ii) where highly performanced managed consultations under the terms of the Quality and Outcomes Framework encourage reductionist approaches to case-finding in people with CHD and diabetes, and iii) where there is uncertainty among practitioners about how to negotiate labels for depression in people with LTCs in ways that might facilitate shared understanding and future management.

Conclusion

Depression was often normalised in the presence of LTCs, obviating rather than facilitating further assessment and management. Furthermore, structural constraints imposed by the QOF encouraged reductionist approaches to case-finding for depression in consultations for CHD and diabetes. Future work might focus on how interventions that draw on the principles of the chronic care model, such as collaborative care, could support primary care practitioners to better recognise and manage depression in patients with LTCs.

SUBMITTER: Coventry PA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3070666 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Talking about depression: a qualitative study of barriers to managing depression in people with long term conditions in primary care.

Coventry Peter A PA Hays Rebecca R Dickens Chris C Bundy Christine C Garrett Charlotte C Cherrington Andrea A Chew-Graham Carolyn C

BMC family practice 20110322

<h4>Background</h4>The risk of depression is increased in people with long term conditions (LTCs) and is associated with poorer patient outcomes for both the depressive illness and the LTC, but often remains undetected and poorly managed. The aim of this study was to identify and explore barriers to detecting and managing depression in primary care in people with two exemplar LTCs: diabetes and coronary heart disease (CHD).<h4>Methods</h4>Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with 19 he ...[more]

PMID: 21426542

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:'Treatment burden', defined as both the workload and impact of treatment regimens on function and well-being, has been associated with poor adherence and unfavourable outcomes. Previous research focused on treatment workload but our understanding of treatment impact is limited. This research aimed to systematically review qualitative research to identify: 1) what are the treatment generated disruptions experienced by patients across all chronic conditions and treatments? 2) what strategies do patients employ to minimise these treatment generated disruptions? METHODS AND FINDINGS:The search strategy centred on: treatment burden and qualitative methods. Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and PsychINFO were searched electronically from inception to Dec 2013. No language limitations were set. Teams of two reviewers independently conducted paper screening, data extraction, and data analysis. Data were analysed using framework synthesis informed by Cumulative Complexity Model. Eleven papers reporting data from 294 patients, across a range of conditions, age groups and nationalities were included. Treatment burdens were experienced as a series of disruptions: biographical disruptions involved loss of freedom and independence, restriction of meaningful activities, negative emotions and stigma; relational disruptions included strained family and social relationships and feeling isolated; and, biological disruptions involved physical side-effects. Patients employed "adaptive treatment work" and "rationalised non-adherence" to minimise treatment disruptions. Rationalised non-adherence was sanctioned by health professionals at end of life; at other times it was a "secret-act" which generated feelings of guilt and impacted on family and clinical relationships. CONCLUSIONS:Treatments generate negative emotions and physical side effects, strain relationships and affect identity. Patients minimise these disruptions through additional adaptive work and/or by non-adherence. This affects physical outcomes and care relationships. There is a need for clinicians to engage with patients in honest conversations about treatment disruptions and the 'adhere-ability' of recommended regimens. Patient-centred practice requires management plans which optimise outcomes and minimise disruptions.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic is having profound psychological impacts on populations globally, with increasing levels of stress, anxiety, and depression being reported, especially in people with pre-existing medical conditions who appear to be particularly vulnerable. There are limited data on the specific concerns people have about COVID-19 and what these are based on.MethodsThe aim of this study was to identify and explore the concerns of people with long-term respiratory conditions in the UK regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and how these concerns were affecting them. We conducted a thematic analysis of free text responses to the question "What are your main concerns about getting coronavirus?", which was included in the British Lung Foundation/Asthma UK (BLF-AUK) partnership COVID-19 survey, conducted between the 1st and 8th of April 2020. This was during the 3rd week of the UK's initial 'social distancing measures' which included advice to stay at home and only go outside for specific limited reasons.Results7039 responses were analysed, with respondents from a wide range of age groups (under 17 to over 80), gender, and all UK nations. Respondents reported having asthma (85%), COPD (9%), bronchiectasis (4%), interstitial lung disease (2%), or 'other' lung diseases (e.g. lung cancer) (1%). Four main themes were identified: (1) vulnerability to COVID-19; (2) anticipated experience of contracting COVID-19; (3) pervasive uncertainty; and (4) inadequate national response.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic is having profound psychological impacts. The concerns we identified largely reflect contextual factors, as well as their subjective experience of the current situation. Hence, key approaches to reducing these concerns require changes to the reality of their situation, and are likely to include (1) helping people optimise their health, limit risk of infection, and access necessities; (2) minimising the negative experience of disease where possible, (3) providing up-to-date, accurate and consistent information, (4) improving the government and healthcare response.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Approximately one-third of all adults worldwide are diagnosed with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). The literature has identified several challenges facing providers and patients coping with managing MCCs in the community, yet few studies have considered their viewpoints in combination. A qualitative study involving healthcare providers and users was thus conducted to examine facilitators and barriers of managing patients with MCCs in the community in Singapore. METHODS:This study involves 26 semi-structured interviews with 10 physicians, 2 caregivers and 14 patients seeking treatment in the polyclinics that provide subsidised primary care services. Topic guides were developed with reference to the literature review, Chronic Care Model (CCM) and framework for patient-centred access to healthcare. RESULTS:Despite the perceived affordability and availability of the support system, some patients still encountered financial difficulties in managing care. These include inadequacy of the nation-wide medical savings scheme to cover outpatient treatment and medications. Half of healthcare users did not know where to seek help. While patients could access comprehensive services in polyclinics, those who did not visit the clinics might not receive timely care. Furthermore, patients reported long consultation waiting time. Physicians were able to propose and drive quality improvement projects to improve care quality. However, there were challenges to delivering safe and quality care with limited consultation duration due to the need to manage high patient load and waiting time, inadequate communication with specialists to coordinate care, and resource constraints in managing complex patients. Although providers could equip patients with self-management and lifestyle-related guidelines, patients' actions are influenced by multiple factors, including work requirements, beliefs and environment. CONCLUSIONS:There were barriers on care access, delivery and self-management. It is crucial to adopt a whole-of-society approach involving individuals, community, institutions and policymakers to improve and support MCC management. This study has also highlighted the importance of considering the different viewpoints of healthcare providers and users in policy formulation and community care planning.

Project description:BackgroundMultiple long-term conditions-the co-existence of two or more chronic health conditions in an individual-present an increasing challenge to populations and healthcare systems worldwide. This challenge is keenly felt in hospital settings where care is oriented around specialist provision for single conditions. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and summarise published qualitative research on the experiences of hospital care for people living with multiple long-term conditions, their informal caregivers and healthcare professionals.MethodsWe undertook a scoping review, following established guidelines, of primary qualitative research on experiences of hospital care for people living with multiple long-term conditions published in peer-reviewed journals between Jan 2010 and June 2022. We conducted systematic electronic searches of MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Proquest Social Science Premium, Web of Science, Scopus and Embase, supplemented by citation tracking. Studies were selected for inclusion by two reviewers using an independent screening process. Data extraction included study populations, study design, findings and author conclusions. We took a narrative approach to reporting the findings.ResultsOf 8002 titles and abstracts screened, 54 papers reporting findings from 41 studies conducted in 14 countries were identified as eligible for inclusion. The perspectives of people living with multiple long-term conditions (21 studies), informal caregivers (n = 13) and healthcare professionals (n = 27) were represented, with 15 studies reporting experiences of more than one group. Findings included poor service integration and lack of person-centred care, limited confidence of healthcare professionals to treat conditions outside of their specialty, and time pressures leading to hurried care transitions. Few studies explored inequities in experiences of hospital care.ConclusionsQualitative research evidence on the experiences of hospital care for multiple long-term conditions illuminates a tension between the desire to provide and receive person-centred care and time pressures inherent within a target-driven system focussed on increasing specialisation, reduced inpatient provision and accelerated journeys through the care system. A move towards more integrated models of care may enable the needs of people living with multiple long-term conditions to be better met. Future research should address how social circumstances shape experiences of care.

Project description:ObjectiveTo synthesise the published literature on practitioner, patient and carer views and experiences of shared medical appointments (SMAs) for the management of long-term conditions in primary care.DesignSystematic review of qualitative primary studies.MethodsA systematic search was conducted using MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science, Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) and Scopus (SciVerse) from database starting dates to June 2019. Practitioner, patient and carer perspectives were coded separately. Deductive coding using a framework approach was followed by thematic analysis and narrative synthesis. Quality assessment was conducted using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme for qualitative studies.ResultsWe identified 18 unique studies that reported practitioner (n=11), patient (n=14) and/or carer perspectivs(n=3). Practitioners reported benefits of SMAs including scope for comprehensive patient-led care, peer support, less repetition and improved efficiency compared with 1:1 care. Barriers included administrative challenges and resistance from patients and colleagues, largely due to uncertainties and unclear expectations. Skilled facilitators, tailoring of SMAs to patient groups, leadership support and teamwork were reported to be important for successful delivery. Patients' reported experiences were largely positive with the SMAs considered a supportive environment in which to share and learn about self-care, though the need for good facilitation was recognised. Reports of carer experience were limited but included improved communication between carer and patient.ConclusionThere is insufficient evidence to indicate whether views and experiences vary between staff, medical condition and/or patient characteristics. Participant experiences may be subject to reporting bias. Policies and guidance regarding best practice need to be developed with consideration given to resource requirements. Further research is needed to capture views about wider and co-occurring conditions, to hear from those without SMA experience and to understand which groups of patients and practitioners should be brought together in an SMA for best effect.Prospero registration numberCRD42019141893.

Dataset Information

Talking about depression: a qualitative study of barriers to managing depression in people with long term conditions in primary care.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Talking about depression: a qualitative study of barriers to managing depression in people with long term conditions in primary care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets