Dataset Information

A Doctor is in the House: Stakeholder Focus Groups About Expanded Scope of Practice of Community Psychiatrists.

ABSTRACT: We sought to understand stakeholder perspectives on barriers to metabolic screening for people with severe mental illness. We additionally assessed the feasibility of expanding psychiatrists' scope of practice to include treatment of cardiometabolic abnormalities. We conducted four focus groups among patients with severe mental illness, community psychiatrists, primary care providers, and public health administrators. Focus group transcripts were thematically analyzed. Three domains emerged: challenges with patient navigation of the complex health care system, problem list prioritization difficulties, and concern that treatment of cardiometabolic abnormalities were beyond the scope of practice of psychiatrists. Stakeholders agreed that navigating the health care system was challenging for this population and led to undertreatment of cardiometabolic risk factors. Expansion of psychiatrists' scope of practice within community mental health appears acceptable to patients and may be a mechanism to improve cardiometabolic care among people with severe mental illness.

SUBMITTER: Mangurian C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6218641 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Doctor is in the House: Stakeholder Focus Groups About Expanded Scope of Practice of Community Psychiatrists.

Mangurian Christina C Modlin Chelsea C Williams Lindsey L Essock Susan S Riano Nicholas S NS Shumway Martha M Newcomer John W JW Dilley James W JW Schillinger Dean D

Community mental health journal 20171128 5

We sought to understand stakeholder perspectives on barriers to metabolic screening for people with severe mental illness. We additionally assessed the feasibility of expanding psychiatrists' scope of practice to include treatment of cardiometabolic abnormalities. We conducted four focus groups among patients with severe mental illness, community psychiatrists, primary care providers, and public health administrators. Focus group transcripts were thematically analyzed. Three domains emerged: cha ...[more]

PMID: 29185153

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundShifts in treatment strategies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have made ambulatory care more labour-intensive. These developments have prompted innovative care models, including mobile health (mHealth) applications. This study aimed to explore the perceptions of mHealth-inexperienced stakeholders concerning these applications in RA care.MethodsWe performed a qualitative study by focus group interviews of stakeholders including RA patients, nurses specialised in RA care and rheumatologists. The qualitative analysis guide of Leuven (QUAGOL), which is based on grounded theory principles, was used to thematically analyse the data. In addition, the Persuasive Systems Design (PSD) model was used to structure recommended app-features.ResultsIn total, 2 focus groups with nurses (total n = 16), 2 with patients (n = 17) and 2 with rheumatologists (n = 25) took place. Six overarching themes emerged from the analysis. Efficiency of care and enabling patient empowerment were the two themes considered as expected benefits of mHealth-use in practice by the stakeholders. In contrast, 4 themes emerged as possible barriers of mHealth-use: the burden of chronic app-use, motivational aspects, target group aspects, and legal and organisational requirements. Additionally, recommendations for an ideal mHealth-app could be structured into 4 domains (Primary Task Support, Dialogue Support, Social Support and System Credibility) according to the PSD-framework. Most recommended features were related to improving ease of use (Task Support) and System Credibility.ConclusionsAlthough mHealth-apps were expected to improve care efficiency and stimulate patient empowerment, stakeholders were concerned that mHealth-app use could reinforce negative illness behaviour. For mHealth-apps to be successful in practice, challenges according to stakeholders were avoiding long-term poor compliance, finding the target audience and tailoring a legal and organisational framework. Finally, the ideal mHealth-application should above all be trustworthy and easy to use.

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.

Project description:BackgroundOverdiagnosis is considered a risk associated with the diagnosis of osteoporosis-as many people diagnosed won't experience harm from the condition. As yet there's little evidence on community understanding of overdiagnosis outside cancer- where it is an established risk of some screening programs-or effective ways to communicate about it. We examined community understanding around overdiagnosis of osteoporosis, to optimise communication strategies about this problem.Methods and findingsUsing a qualitative design we recruited a community sample of women, 50-80 years, from the Gold Coast community around Bond University, Australia, using random digit dialing, and conducted 5 focus groups with 41 women. A discussion guide and 4-part presentation were developed and piloted, with independent review from a consumer and clinical experts. Initial discussion had 4 segments: osteoporosis; bone density vs. other risk factors; medication; and overdiagnosis. The second half included the 4 short presentations and discussions on each. Analysis used Framework Analysis method. Initially participants described osteoporosis as bone degeneration causing some fear, demonstrated imprecise understanding of overdiagnosis, had a view osteoporosis couldn't be overdiagnosed as bone scans provided "clear cut" results, expressed belief in early diagnosis, and interest in prevention strategies enabling control. Following presentations, participants expressed some understanding of overdiagnosis, preference for describing osteoporosis as a "risk factor" not "disease", concern about a poor risk-benefit ratio for medications, and surprise and unease the definition of osteoporosis decided bone density of young women was "normal", without age adjustment. Limitations include English-speaking backgrounds of the sample and complex materials.ConclusionsOur findings suggest a gap between community expectations and how experts sometimes arbitrarily set low diagnostic thresholds which label those at risk as "diseased". Optimal communication about overdiagnosis could build on community scepticism about treatments, encouraging weighing up benefits and harms of tests and diagnoses, and framing this information as positively adding to knowledge.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In remote areas, connected health (CH) is needed, but as local resources are often scarce and the purchasing power of residents is usually poor, it is a challenge to apply CH in these settings. In this study, CH is defended as a technological solution for reshaping the direction of health care to be more proactive, preventive, and precisely targeted-and thus, more effective. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to explore the identity of CH stakeholders in remote areas of Taiwan and their interests and power in order to determine ideal strategies for applying CH. We aimed to explore the respective unknowns and discover insights for those facing similar issues. METHODS:Qualitative research was conducted to investigate and interpret the phenomena of the aging population in a remote setting. An exploratory approach was employed involving semistructured interviews with 22 participants from 8 remote allied case studies. The interviews explored perspectives on stakeholder arrangements, including the power and interests of stakeholders and the needs of all the parties in the ecosystem. RESULTS:Results were obtained from in-depth interviews and focus groups that included identifying the stakeholders of remote health and determining how they influence its practice, as well as how associated agreements bring competitive advantages. Stakeholders included people in government sectors, industrial players, academic researchers, end users, and their associates who described their perspectives on their power and interests in remote health service delivery. Specific facilitators of and barriers to effective delivery were identified. A number of themes, such as government interests and power of decision making, were corroborated across rural and remote services. These themes were broadly grouped into the disclosure of conflicts of interest, asymmetry in decision making, and data development for risk assessment. CONCLUSIONS:This study contributes to current knowledge by exploring the features of CH in remote areas and investigating its implementation from the perspectives of stakeholder management. It offers insights into managing remote health through a CH platform, which can be used for preliminary quantitative research. Consequently, these findings could help to more effectively facilitate diverse stakeholder engagement for health information sharing and social interaction.

Dataset Information

A Doctor is in the House: Stakeholder Focus Groups About Expanded Scope of Practice of Community Psychiatrists.

Publications

A Doctor is in the House: Stakeholder Focus Groups About Expanded Scope of Practice of Community Psychiatrists.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets