Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University Bloomington, 1101 E 10th Street, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA.
BMC Psychiatry. 2023 Aug 17;23(1):600. doi: 10.1186/s12888-023-05055-6.
Low-intensity treatments (LITs), such as bibliotherapy or online self-help, have the potential to reach more individuals than traditional face-to-face care by circumventing many of the common barriers to mental health treatment. Despite substantial research evidence supporting their usability and efficacy across several clinical presentations, prior work suggests that mental health providers rarely recommend LITs for patients waiting for treatment.
The present study analyzed provider open responses to a prompt asking about perceived barriers, thoughts, and comments related to additional treatment resources for patients on treatment waiting lists. We surveyed 141 practicing mental health providers, 65 of whom responded to an open text box with additional thoughts on using LITs for patients on treatment waiting lists. Responses were qualitatively coded using a thematic coding process.
Qualitative outcomes yielded 11 codes: patient appropriateness, research evidence, feasibility, patient barriers, liability, patient personal contact, additional resources, positive attitudes, trust in programs, systemic problems, and downplaying distress.
Results suggest providers are predominantly concerned about the potential of suggesting a LIT that would be ultimately inappropriate for their patient due to a lack of assessment of the patient's needs. Furthermore, providers noted ambiguity around the legal and ethical liability of recommending a LIT to someone who may not yet be a patient. Guidelines and standards for recommending LITs to patients on treatment waiting lists may help address ambiguity regarding their use in routine care.
低强度治疗(LIT),如阅读疗法或在线自助,有可能通过规避许多心理健康治疗的常见障碍,比传统的面对面治疗覆盖更多的人群。尽管有大量研究证据支持它们在多种临床表现中的可用性和有效性,但之前的工作表明,精神卫生服务提供者很少向等待治疗的患者推荐 LIT。
本研究分析了对一个提示的提供者开放式回答,该提示询问了与治疗等候名单上的患者相关的额外治疗资源的感知障碍、想法和意见。我们调查了 141 名从事精神卫生服务的提供者,其中 65 名对一个关于在治疗等候名单上使用 LIT 治疗患者的开放式文本框提供了更多的想法。使用主题编码过程对回复进行了定性编码。
定性结果产生了 11 个代码:患者适宜性、研究证据、可行性、患者障碍、责任、患者个人联系、额外资源、积极态度、对项目的信任、系统问题和淡化痛苦。
结果表明,提供者主要关注的是,由于缺乏对患者需求的评估,建议一种 LIT 最终可能不适合他们的患者。此外,提供者还指出,在向可能尚未成为患者的人推荐 LIT 时,存在法律和道德责任方面的模糊性。为治疗等候名单上的患者推荐 LIT 的指南和标准可能有助于解决其在常规护理中的使用的模糊性。