Ford Joseph, Thomas Felicity, Byng Richard, McCabe Rose
Postdoctoral Research Associate, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter Medical School, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, UK
Senior Research Fellow, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter Medical School, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, UK.
BJGP Open. 2019 Oct 29;3(4). doi: 10.3399/bjgpopen19X101670.
Patient take-up and adherence to antidepressants and talking therapy is low. However, little is known about how GPs recommend these treatments and whether patients accept them.
To examine how GPs recommend antidepressants and talking therapy, and how patients respond.
DESIGN & SETTING: A total of 52 recorded primary care consultations for depression, anxiety, and stress were analysed.
Using a standardised coding scheme, five ways doctors recommend treatment were coded, conveying varying authority and endorsement. The treatment recommendation types were as follows: more directive pronouncements (I'll start you on X); proposals (How about we start X?); less directive suggestions (Would you like to try X?); offers (Do you want me to give you X?); and assertions (There are medications that might help). It was also coded whether patients accepted, passively resisted (for example, withholding response), or actively resisted (for example, I've tried that before).
A total of 33 recommendations occurred in 23 consultations. In two-thirds of cases, GPs treated the patient as primary decision-maker by using suggestions, offers, or assertions. In one-third of cases, they used more directive pronouncements or proposals. GPs endorsed treatment moderately (67%), weakly (18%), or strongly (15%). Only one-quarter of recommendations were accepted immediately. Patients cited fears about medication side effects and/or dependency, group therapy, and doubts about treatment efficacy. Despite three-quarters of patients resisting, 76% got prescriptions or self-referral information for talking therapy.
Initially, GPs treat patients as the decision-maker. However, although patients resist, most end up with treatment. This may impact negatively on treatment uptake and success. Social prescribing may fill a treatment gap for some patients.
患者对抗抑郁药和谈话疗法的接受度及依从性较低。然而,对于全科医生如何推荐这些治疗方法以及患者是否接受这些推荐,我们知之甚少。
研究全科医生如何推荐抗抑郁药和谈话疗法,以及患者如何回应。
对52次记录在案的针对抑郁、焦虑和压力的基层医疗会诊进行了分析。
使用标准化编码方案,对医生推荐治疗的五种方式进行编码,这些方式传达了不同程度的权威性和认可度。治疗推荐类型如下:更具指导性的声明(我将让你开始使用X);提议(我们开始使用X怎么样?);指导性较弱的建议(你想试试X吗?);主动提供(你想让我给你X吗?);以及断言(有一些药物可能会有帮助)。还对患者是接受、被动抵制(例如,不回应)还是主动抵制(例如,我以前试过那个)进行了编码。
在23次会诊中总共出现了33次推荐。在三分之二的病例中,全科医生通过使用建议、主动提供或断言,将患者视为主要决策者。在三分之一的病例中,他们使用了更具指导性的声明或提议。全科医生对治疗的认可程度为中等(67%)、较弱(18%)或强烈(15%)。只有四分之一的推荐被立即接受。患者提到了对药物副作用和/或依赖性、团体治疗的担忧,以及对治疗效果的怀疑。尽管四分之三的患者抵制,但76%的患者还是获得了谈话疗法的处方或自我转诊信息。
最初,全科医生将患者视为决策者。然而,尽管患者抵制,但大多数最终还是接受了治疗。这可能会对治疗的接受度和成功率产生负面影响。社会处方可能会填补一些患者的治疗空白。