84
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      General Practitioners' Choices and Their Determinants When Starting Treatment for Major Depression: A Cross Sectional, Randomized Case-Vignette Survey

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          In developed countries, primary care physicians manage most patients with depression. Relatively few studies allow a comprehensive assessment of the decisions these doctors make in these cases and the factors associated with these decisions. We studied how general practitioners (GPs) manage the acute phase of a new episode of non-comorbid major depression (MD) and the factors associated with their decisions.

          Methodology/Principal Findings

          In this cross-sectional telephone survey, professional investigators interviewed an existing panel of randomly selected GPs (1249/1431, response rate: 87.3%). We used case-vignettes about new MD episodes in 8 versions differing by patient gender and socioeconomic status (blue/white collar) and disease intensity (mild/severe). GPs were randomized to receive one of these 8 versions. Overall, 82.6% chose pharmacotherapy; among them GPs chose either an antidepressant (79.8%) or an anxiolytic/hypnotic alone (18.5%). They rarely recommended referral for psychotherapy alone, regardless of severity, but 38.2% chose it in combination with pharmacotherapy. Antidepressant prescription was associated with severity of depression (OR = 1.74; 95%CI = 1.33–2.27), patient gender (female, OR = 0.75; 95%CI = 0.58–0.98), GP personal characteristics (e.g. history of antidepressant treatment: OR = 2.31; 95%CI = 1.41–3.81) and GP belief that antidepressants are overprescribed in France (OR = 0.63; 95%CI = 0.48–0.82). The combination of antidepressants and psychotherapy was associated with severity of depression (OR = 1.82; 95%CI = 1.31–2.52), patient's white-collar status (OR = 1.58; 95%CI = 1.14–2.18), and GPs' dissatisfaction with cooperation with mental health specialists (OR = 0.63; 95%CI = 0.45–0.89). These choices were not associated with either GPs' professional characteristics or psychiatrist density in the GP's practice areas.

          Conclusions/Significance

          GPs' choices for treating severe MD complied with clinical guidelines better than those for mild MD; GPs rarely recommended psychotherapy alone but rather as a complement to pharmacotherapy. Their decisions were mainly influenced by personal life experience and attitudes regarding treatment more than by professional characteristics. These results call into question the methods and content of continuing medical education in France about MD management.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Managing depression in primary care: A meta-synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research from the UK to identify barriers and facilitators

          Background Current management in primary care of depression, with or without comorbid physical illness, has been found to be suboptimal. We therefore conducted a systematic review to identify clinician perceived barriers to and facilitators for good depression care. Methods We conducted a systematic literature search to identify qualitative and quantitative studies published in the UK since 2000 of GPs' and practice nurses' attitudes to the management of depression. We used principles from meta-ethnography to identify common and refuted themes across studies. Results We identified 7 qualitative and 10 quantitative studies; none concerned depression and co-morbid physical illness of any kind. The studies of managing patients with a primary diagnosis of depression indicated that GPs and PNs are unsure of the exact nature of the relationship between mood and social problems and of their role in managing it. Among some clinicians, ambivalent attitudes to working with depressed people, a lack of confidence, the use of a limited number of management options and a belief that a diagnosis of depression is stigmatising complicate the management of depression. Conclusions Detection and management of depression is considered complex. In particular, primary care clinicians need guidance to address the social needs of depressed patients. It is not known whether the same issues are important when managing depressed people with co-morbid physical illness.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Influence of patients' socioeconomic status on clinical management decisions: a qualitative study.

            Little is known about how patients' socioeconomic status (SES) influences physicians' clinical management decisions, although this information may have important implications for understanding inequities in health care quality. We investigated physician perspectives on how patients' SES influences care. The study consisted of in-depth semistructured interviews with primary care physicians in Connecticut. Investigators coded interviews line by line and refined the coding structure and interview guide based on successive interviews. Recurrent themes emerged through iterative analysis of codes and tagged quotations. We interviewed 18 physicians from varied practice settings, 6 female, 9 from minority racial backgrounds, and 3 of Hispanic ethnicity. Four themes emerged from our interviews: (1) physicians held conflicting views about the effect of patient SES on clinical management, (2) physicians believed that changes in clinical management based on the patient's SES were made in the patient's interest, (3) physicians varied in the degree to which they thought changes in clinical management influenced patient outcomes, and (4) physicians faced personal and financial strains when caring for patients of low SES. Physicians indicated that patient SES did affect their clinical management decisions. As a result, physicians commonly undertook changes to their management plan in an effort to enhance patient outcomes, but they experienced numerous strains when trying to balance what they believed was feasible for the patient with what they perceived as established standards of care.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              "I want more time with my doctor": a quantitative study of time and the consultation.

              Although consultations have increased in length, patients still express dissatisfaction with how much time they spend with their doctor. This study aimed to explore aspects of consultation time and to examine the correlates of patients' desire for more time. A quantitative cross-sectional design was used. General practice patients from eight UK practices (n = 294) completed a questionnaire following a consultation regarding their satisfaction with the consultation, their beliefs about how long the consultation lasted (perceived time) and how long they would have preferred it to last (preferred time). The actual consultation length (real time) was recorded by the doctor. The majority of patients underestimated how long the consultation took, and a large minority stated that they would have preferred more time. When controlling for both real time and perceived time, a preference for more time was correlated with a dissatisfaction with the emotional aspects of the consultation and a lower intention to comply with the doctors recommendations. It was unrelated to satisfaction with the information giving and examination components of the consultation. Patients' dissatisfaction with consultation length could be managed by making consultations longer. Alternatively, it could also be managed by changing how a given time is spent. In particular, a doctor who listens and tries to understand their patient may make the patient feel more satisfied with the consultation length and subsequently more motivated to follow any recommendations for change.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )
                1932-6203
                2012
                18 December 2012
                : 7
                : 12
                : e52429
                Affiliations
                [1 ]UMR912, Sciences Economiques & Sociales de la Santé & Traitement de l'Information Médicale (SESSTIM), Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), Marseille, France
                [2 ]UMR-S912, Aix Marseille Université, Institut Recherche et Développement (IRD), Marseille, France
                [3 ]Observatoire Régional de la Santé Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur (ORS Paca), Marseille, France
                [4 ]U657, Université Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France
                [5 ]U657, INSERM, Bordeaux, France
                [6 ]Union régionale des professionnels de santé - Médecins libéraux - Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, Marseille, France
                The University of Queensland, Australia
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Conceived and designed the experiments: PV HD AP RS HV. Performed the experiments: HD. Analyzed the data: SC. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: PV HD AP RS HV. Wrote the paper: HD.

                Article
                PONE-D-12-31910
                10.1371/journal.pone.0052429
                3525552
                23272243
                44137e85-8fc7-410f-902f-d6775071114f
                Copyright @ 2012

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 16 October 2012
                : 13 November 2012
                Page count
                Pages: 10
                Funding
                The French Regional Panel of General Practices received funding from: 1) the Direction de la Recherche, des Etudes, de l'Evaluation et des Statistiques (DREES) – Ministère du travail, des relations sociales, de la famille, de la solidarité et de la ville/Ministère de la Santé et des Sports as part of the 2010–2012 contract with the Observatoire Régional de la Santé Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur; 2) the Institut de la Recherche en Santé Publique (IReSP) in the frame of the Research Program 2011 “Santé mentale, prévention, prospective, thématiques générales de l'IReSP”. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine
                Clinical Research Design
                Cross-Sectional Studies
                Survey Research
                Mental Health
                Non-Clinical Medicine
                Health Care Policy
                Sexual and Gender Issues
                Treatment Guidelines
                Health Care Providers
                Health Services Research
                Socioeconomic Aspects of Health
                Primary Care

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                40
                1
                41
                2
                Smart Citations
                40
                1
                41
                2
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content106

                Cited by15

                Most referenced authors391