Dataset Information

General practitioners' perspectives on barriers to depression care: development and validation of a questionnaire.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:General practitioners (GPs) regularly feel challenged by the care of depressed patients and may encounter several barriers in providing best management. GPs' perspectives on barriers to depression care are a subject of growing interest but there is a lack of validated assessment tools. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a questionnaire assessing barriers to depression care (BDC-Q) encountered by GPs in France and the French-speaking part of Switzerland. METHODS:The BDC-Q was constructed in five steps: Item development, content validation, pretesting, testing phase and test-retest reliability. The questionnaire items were generated through a literature search. An expert panel of GPs (n =?16) and psychiatrists (n =?3) validated the content and 20 GPs pretested the questionnaire to provide response process validity evidence. We then tested the questionnaire among 116 GPs and used principal component analysis and internal consistency testing (Cronbach's alpha) to structure it into consistent dimensions. Test-retest reliability using Pearson correlation coefficient was assessed with 30 GPs who completed the questionnaire twice after an interval of at least 2?weeks. RESULTS:The 25 items BDC-Q was structured in five dimensions: (i) provision of care by the general practitioner, (ii) considering patients' attitudes towards depression, (iii) guidance for care, (iv) collaboration with mental health specialists and (v) access to mental health care. CONCLUSIONS:The BDC-Q displays evidence of validity and reliability to meaningfully assess GPs' perspectives on barriers to depression care. It can be used both at a practice level within a quality improvement strategy, and at a broader level, to inform health planners and tailor appropriate strategies to improve depression care in the community.

SUBMITTER: Senchyna A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7395981 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

General practitioners' perspectives on barriers to depression care: development and validation of a questionnaire.

Senchyna Arun A Abbiati Milena M Chambe Juliette J Haller Dagmar M DM Maisonneuve Hubert H

BMC family practice 20200801 1

<h4>Background</h4>General practitioners (GPs) regularly feel challenged by the care of depressed patients and may encounter several barriers in providing best management. GPs' perspectives on barriers to depression care are a subject of growing interest but there is a lack of validated assessment tools. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a questionnaire assessing barriers to depression care (BDC-Q) encountered by GPs in France and the French-speaking part of Switzerland.<h4>Metho ...[more]

PMID: 32738899

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The implementation of early palliative care within a primary care setting is a recent academic topic. Recruiting General Practitioners (GPs) to participate in a palliative care study can be challenging. The pro-Spinoza project implemented a Care Pathway for Primary Palliative Care in 5 areas in Belgium. During this project, the feasibility of the recruitment of GPs and palliative care patients was evaluated. METHODS:The recruitment process was recorded in detail via an electronic logbook combining quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative recordings included the contact types and the number of contacts with eligible GPs and were analysed descriptively. Qualitative recordings included field notes with feedback from the GPs and other stakeholders and were thematically analysed starting from the Grol and Wensing framework for professional behaviour change. RESULTS:Of 4065 eligible GPs working in 5 areas under research, 787 GPs (19%) were contacted individually, 398 GPs (9,8%) were contacted face-to-face and most of these 398 GPs showed high interest in the topic. 112 GPs (2,8%) signed the collaboration agreement, but finally only 65 GPs (1,6%) delivered at least a completed baseline-questionnaire. Despite the initial interest in participating, the unpredictable and busy daily workloads of the GPs, as well as inexperience with research protocols, impeded the ability of the GPs to fully engage in the study. This resulted in the high dropout rate. Participating GPs reported that they had underestimated the effort required to effectively participate in the project. CONCLUSIONS:Recruitment of GPs to palliative care research is challenging. Primary care is a vital service to engage in palliative care research however the practical limitations reduce the ability of the service to effectively engage in the research. More research is needed to determine how GPs might be better supported in research. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02266069 , Registered 16th October 2014, retrospectively registered.

Project description:BackgroundMajor depressive disorder (MDD) is highly prevalent and often managed by general practitioners (GPs). GPs mostly prescribe medication and show low referral rates to psychotherapy. Many patients remain untreated. Blended psychotherapy (bPT) combines internet-based interventions with face-to-face psychotherapy and could increase treatment access and availability. Effectively implementing bPT in routine care requires an understanding of professional users' perspectives and behavior.ObjectiveThis study aims to identify barriers and facilitators perceived by GPs in referring patients to bPT. Explanations for variations in referral rates were examined.MethodsSemistructured interviews were conducted with 12 of 110 GPs participating in a German randomized controlled trial (RCT) to investigate barriers to and facilitators for referrals to bPT for MDD (10 web-based modules, app-based assessments, and 6 face-to-face sessions). The interview guide was based on the theoretical domains framework. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim, and the qualitative content was analyzed by 2 independent coders (intercoder agreement, k=0.71). A follow-up survey with 12 interviewed GPs enabled the validation of emergent themes. The differences in the barriers and facilitators identified between groups with different characteristics (eg, GPs with high or low referral rates) were described. Correlations between referrals and characteristics, self-rated competences, and experiences managing depression of the RCT-GPs (n=76) were conducted.ResultsGPs referred few patients to bPT, although varied in their referral rates, and interviewees referred more than twice as many patients as RCT-GPs (interview-GPs: mean 6.34, SD 9.42; RCT-GPs: mean 2.65, SD 3.92). A negative correlation was found between GPs' referrals and their self-rated pharmacotherapeutic competence, r(73)=-0.31, P<.001. The qualitative findings revealed a total of 19 barriers (B) and 29 facilitators (F), at the levels of GP (B=4 and F=11), patient (B=11 and F=9), GP practice (B=1 and F=3), and sociopolitical circumstances (B=3 and F=6). Key barriers stated by all interviewed GPs included "little knowledge about internet-based interventions" and "patients' lack of familiarity with technology/internet/media" (number of statements, each k=22). Key facilitators were "perceived patient suitability, e.g. well-educated, young" (k=22) and "no conflict with GP's role" (k=16). The follow-up survey showed a very high agreement rate of at least 75% for 71% (34/48) of the identified themes. Descriptive findings indicated differences between GPs with low and high referral rates in terms of which and how many barriers (low: mean 9.75, SD 1.83; high: mean 10.50, SD 2.38) and facilitators (low: mean 18.25, SD 4.13; high: mean 21.00; SD 3.92) they mentioned.ConclusionsThis study provides insights into factors influencing GPs' referrals to bPT as gatekeepers to depression care. Barriers and facilitators should be considered when designing implementation strategies to enhance referral rates. The findings should be interpreted with care because of the small and self-selected sample and low response rates.

Project description:BackgroundPrimary care practitioners (PCPs), being the front liners, play an important role in treating allergic rhinitis (AR). As there is no proper tool to assess their perception, attitude, and practice in utilizing the guidelines, we aimed to develop and validate a new questionnaire for such purpose.MethodsThe development phase consists of both literature and expert panel review. The validation phase consists of content validity, face validity, and construct validity. Cronbach's alpha was used to verify internal consistency. The development phase produced a questionnaire with 3 domains: perception, attitude, and practice consisting of 60 items (PAP-PCP questionnaire). Item response theory analysis for perception demonstrated the difficulty and discrimination values were acceptable except for 3 items. Exploratory factor analysis for attitude and practice domains showed the psychometric properties were good except for 3 items in practice domain. Experts judgement was used to decide on the final selection of questionnaire which consists of 59 items.ResultsThe final validated questionnaire has 3 domains with 59 items. All domains had Cronbach's alpha above 0.65 which was reliable. 302 physicians completed the questionnaire. 98% PCPs diagnosed AR based on clinical history. Although, majority agree AR guidelines is useful (67%), they had difficulty in using it to classify AR (54.9%) and determine AR severity (73.9%). Oral anti-histamines (first and second generation) were the most prescribed (>75%) followed by intranasal corticosteroids (59%) and combined intranasal corticosteroid and oral anti-histamine (51%). Majority agreed that treatment efficacy (81.8%), adverse effects (83.8%), fear of adverse effects (73.5%), route of administration (69.4%), dosing frequency (72.5%), taste (64.6%) and cost (73.5%) affect treatment compliance.ConclusionsThe newly developed and validated questionnaire is a promising instrument in understanding the treatment gap in AR. Although further testing and refinement are needed, it provides an initial means for evaluating knowledge and understanding of PCPs in treating AR.

Project description:BackgroundDespite considerable efforts to promote and support guideline use, adherence is often suboptimal. Barriers to adherence vary not only across guidelines but also across recommendations within guidelines. The aim of this study was to assess the perceived barriers to guideline adherence among GPs by focusing on key recommendations within guidelines.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional electronic survey among 703 GPs in the Netherlands. Sixteen key recommendations were derived from four national guidelines. Six statements were included to address the attitudes towards guidelines in general. In addition, GPs were asked to rate their perceived adherence (one statement) and the perceived barriers (fourteen statements) for each of the key recommendations, based on an existing framework.Results264 GPs (38%) completed the questionnaire. Although 35% of the GPs reported difficulties in changing routines and habits to follow guidelines, 89% believed that following guidelines leads to improved patient care. Perceived adherence varied between 52 and 95% across recommendations (mean: 77%). The most perceived barriers were related to external factors, in particular patient ability and behaviour (mean: 30%) and patient preferences (mean: 23%). Lack of applicability of recommendations in general (mean: 22%) and more specifically to individual patients (mean: 25%) were also frequently perceived as barriers. The scores on perceived barriers differed largely between recommendations [minimum range 14%; maximum range 67%].ConclusionsDutch GPs have a positive attitude towards the NHG guidelines, report high adherence rates and low levels of perceived barriers. However, the perceived adherence and perceived barriers varied largely across recommendations. The most perceived barriers across recommendations are patient related, suggesting that current guidelines do not always adequately incorporate patient preferences, needs and abilities. It may be useful to provide tools such as decision aids, supporting the flexible use of guidelines to individual patients in practice.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Indicators for the quality of palliative care are a priority of caregivers and managers to allow improvement of various care settings and their comparison. The involvement of patients and families is of paramount, although this is rarely achieved in practice. No validated assessment tools are available in French. Simple cultural adaption of existing questionnaires may be insufficient, due to the varying organization of care in different countries. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a new instrument to measure the quality of palliative care and satisfaction from the patient point of view. METHODS:Results from a qualitative study were used by a multi-professional workgroup to construct an initial set of 42 items exploring six domains. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in seven hospitals, encompassing three care settings: two palliative care units, one palliative care hospital, and four standard medical units with a mobile palliative care team. All items were assessed for acceptability. We conducted exploratory structural analysis using Principal Component Analysis (PCA), and evaluated external validity by comparison against global rating of satisfaction and the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) questionnaire. RESULTS:A total of 214 patients completed the questionnaire. After removing 7 items from the response distribution, PCA identified eight interpretable domains from the 35 final items: availability of caregivers, serenity, quality of information, pain management, caregivers' listening skills, psychosocial and spiritual aspects, possibility to refuse (care or volunteers), and respect for the patient. Internal consistency was good or acceptable for all subscales (Cronbach's ? 0.5-0.84), except the last one (0.15). Factorial structure was found globally maintained across subgroups defined by age, sex, Palliative Performance Scale (PPS???60%, 40-50% and???30%), and care settings. General satisfaction was inversely correlated with the 2 scores of the MDASI questionnaire: symptoms' severity and impact on life. Each subscale, except "possibility to refuse", correlated with general satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS:Quali-Palli-Pat appears to be a valid, reliable, and well-accepted French tool to explore the quality of care and the satisfaction of palliative care patients. It should be confirmed in a wider sample of care settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov NCT02814682 , registration date 28.6.2016.

Dataset Information

General practitioners' perspectives on barriers to depression care: development and validation of a questionnaire.

Publications

General practitioners' perspectives on barriers to depression care: development and validation of a questionnaire.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets