Dataset Information

GPs' views and experiences of managing patients with personality disorder: a qualitative interview study.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to explore GPs' views and experiences of managing patients with personality disorder (PD), and their views on the role of the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme as a support service. DESIGN:In-depth interviews, analysed thematically. PARTICIPANTS:Fifteen GPs (7 women and 8 men) of varying age and clinical experience, working in practices that differed in terms of the socio-demographic characteristics of their patient populations. SETTING:Twelve general practices based in the West of England, UK. RESULTS:GPs described patients with PD as being challenging to work with and that this work required dedicated time and care. They described experiencing particular difficulty with monitoring their patient's mental health, as well as having little knowledge about the efficacy or availability of treatments for their attenders with PD. They were aware that this patient population often experienced poor mental health and reported a propensity for them to fall into the gap between primary and secondary mental health services, leaving GPs with little choice but to improvise their own management plans, which occasionally involved funding third-sector treatment options. In terms of IAPT services' role in managing these patients, GPs wanted shorter waiting times, better inter-agency communication, more highly trained therapists and more treatment options for patients with PD. They also wanted the service to be able to 'hold' patients with PD in treatment over a longer period than currently offered. CONCLUSIONS:Findings suggest that, overall, GPs did not consider National Health Service mental health services to offer an effective treatment for patients with PD. While they considered the IAPT programme to be a valuable service for patients with less complex mental health needs, such as depression and anxiety; they felt that the current service provision struggled to meet the needs of patients with more complex mental health needs, as exemplified by people with PD.

SUBMITTER: French L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6398667 | biostudies-other | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

GPs' views and experiences of managing patients with personality disorder: a qualitative interview study.

French Lydia L Moran Paul P Wiles Nicola N Kessler David D Turner Katrina M KM

BMJ open 20190227 2

<h4>Objective</h4>The aim of this study was to explore GPs' views and experiences of managing patients with personality disorder (PD), and their views on the role of the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme as a support service.<h4>Design</h4>In-depth interviews, analysed thematically.<h4>Participants</h4>Fifteen GPs (7 women and 8 men) of varying age and clinical experience, working in practices that differed in terms of the socio-demographic characteristics of their pat ...[more]

PMID: 30819713

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) is defined as medication with uncertain therapeutic effects and/or potential adverse drug reactions outweighing the clinical benefits. The prescription rate of PIM for oldest-old patients is high despite the existence of lists of PIM (e.g. the PRISCUS list) and efforts to raise awareness. This study aims at identifying general practitioners' views on PIM and aspects affecting the (long-term) use of PIM. METHODS:As part of the CIM-TRIAD study, we conducted semi-structured, qualitative interviews with 47 general practitioners, discussing 25 patients with and 22 without PIM (according to the PRISCUS list). The interview guideline included generic and patient-specific questions. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. We content analyzed the interviews using deductive and inductive category development. RESULTS:The majority of the general practitioners were not aware of the PRISCUS list. Agents deemed potentially inappropriate from the general practitioners' point of view and the PRISCUS list are not completely superimposable. General practitioners named their criteria to identify appropriate medication for elderly patients (e.g. renal function, cognitive state) and emphasized the importance of monitoring. We identified prescription- (e.g. benzodiazepines on alternative private prescription), medication- (e.g. subjective perception that PIM has no alternative), general practitioner- (e.g. general practitioner relies on specialists), patient- (e.g. "demanding high-user", positive subjective benefit-risk-ratio) and system-related aspects (e.g. specialists lacking holistic view, interface problems) related to the (long term) use of PIM. CONCLUSIONS:While the PRISCUS list does not seem to play a decisive role in general practice, general practitioners are well aware of risks associated with PIM. Our study identifies some starting points for a safer handling of PIM, e.g. stronger dissemination of the PRISCUS list, better compensation of medication reviews, "positive lists", adequate patient information, multifaceted interventions and improved communication between general practitioners and specialists.

Project description:BackgroundGene drive technologies (GDTs) promote the rapid spread of a particular genetic element within a population of non-human organisms. Potential applications of GDTs include the control of insect vectors, invasive species and agricultural pests. Whether, and if so, under what conditions, GDTs should be deployed is hotly debated. Although broad stances in this debate have been described, the convictions that inform the moral views of the experts shaping these technologies and related policies have not been examined in depth in the academic literature.MethodsIn this qualitative study, we interviewed GDT experts (n?=?33) from different disciplines to identify and better understand their moral views regarding these technologies. The pseudonymized transcripts were analyzed thematically.ResultsThe respondents' moral views were principally influenced by their attitudes towards (1) the uncertainty related to GDTs; (2) the alternatives to which they should be compared; and (3) the role humans should have in nature. Respondents agreed there is epistemic uncertainty related to GDTs, identified similar knowledge gaps, and stressed the importance of realistic expectations in discussions on GDTs. They disagreed about whether uncertainty provides a rationale to refrain from field trials ('risks of intervention' stance) or to proceed with phased testing to obtain more knowledge given the harms of the status quo ('risks of non-intervention' stance). With regards to alternatives to tackle vector-borne diseases, invasive species and agricultural pests, respondents disagreed about which alternatives should be considered (un)feasible and (in)sufficiently explored: conventional strategies ('downstream solutions' stance) or systematic changes to health care, political and agricultural systems ('upstream solutions' stance). Finally, respondents held different views on nature and whether the use of GDTs is compatible with humans' role in nature ('interference' stance) or not ('non-interference stance').ConclusionsThis interview study helps to disentangle the debate on GDTs by providing a better understanding of the moral views of GDT experts. The obtained insights provide valuable stepping-stones for a constructive debate about underlying value conflicts and call attention to topics that deserve further (normative) reflection. Further evaluation of these issues can facilitate the debate on and responsible development of GDTs.

Dataset Information

GPs' views and experiences of managing patients with personality disorder: a qualitative interview study.

Publications

GPs' views and experiences of managing patients with personality disorder: a qualitative interview study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets