BackgroundAt-risk drinking is common in Australia. Validated screening tools such as the AUDIT-C have been promoted to general practitioners (GPs), but appear rarely used and detection of at-risk drinking in primary care remains low. We sought to describe Australian GP perceptions of the detection and screening of at-risk drinking; to understand their low uptake of alcohol screening questionnaires, and in particular, their attitude to the adoption of the AUDIT-C.MethodsSemi-structured focus group interviews of four groups of GPs and GP trainees were conducted in metropolitan Sydney between August and October 2011. Audio recordings were transcribed and analysed using grounded theory methodology.ResultsWe identified four main themes: there was consensus that detecting at-risk drinking is important but difficult to do, social and cultural attitudes to alcohol consumption affect willingness to ask questions about its use, the dynamics of patient-doctor interactions are important, and alcohol screening questionnaires lack practical utility. Analysis suggests that the conceptual barriers to detecting at-risk drinking were: community stigma and stereotypes of “problem drinking”, GP perceptions of unreliable patient alcohol use histories, and the perceived threat to the patient-doctor relationship.ConclusionThis small exploratory study found that the practice of, and barriers to, detecting at-risk drinking appear to be inextricably linked to the sociocultural beliefs surrounding alcohol use. Screening questionnaires such as the AUDIT-C are not designed to address these issues. In the current context, it is unlikely that approaches that focus on the use of these tools will be effective at improving detection of at-risk drinking by GPs.

Background In Australia, ethnic Chinese people are one of the largest, youngest and fastest growing overseas-born groups. Yet, little is known about their perceptions of contraceptive methods and their experiences with choosing one. Decisions about contraceptive methods are preference sensitive. Understanding the influencing factors of Chinese migrant women’s contraceptive method choice and practices will help cater to their decision-making needs in a culturally sensitive and responsive way. Methods A qualitative study design underpinned by critical realism approach was used to explore Chinese migrant women’s perceptions and experiences of choosing contraceptive methods. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 women who self-identified as being ethnically Chinese and had been living in Australia for no more than 10 years. The interview guide was adapted from the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Majority of the interviews were conducted in Mandarin Chinese. Transcribed data was analysed using thematic analysis method. Results Four major themes were identified, including: ‘every medicine is part poison: hormonal contraceptives cause harm to the body’; ‘intrauterine device, a device used in the past for married women’; ‘it takes two (or one) to decide, depending on the relationship dynamics and contraception preferences’; and ‘it is not necessary to seek medical advice in choosing contraceptive methods’. Conclusions Our findings suggest that Chinese migrant women’s perceptions and experiences of choosing contraceptive methods are influenced by complex personal, cultural, societal and inter-relational factors. Chinese migrant women were cautious of using hormonal methods due to fears of side-effects, including reduced or absent menstrual bleeding. Women were also reluctant to consider intrauterine devices as options due to associating them with past experiences of other women and themselves and also fears of potential complications. There was a reluctant attitude towards seeking medical advice regarding contraception due to beliefs that needing to use contraception is not an illness requiring treatment. Such findings are likely to be useful in increasing healthcare professionals’ and policy makers’ understanding of Chinese migrant women’s contraceptive method preferences, beliefs and behaviours. They also help to develop culturally and linguistically sensitive strategies, which goes beyond the provision of contraceptive counselling, in assisting Chinese migrant women’s decision-making needs.

Background To optimise medication use in older people, it is recommended that clinicians evaluate evidence on potential benefits and harms of medicines in light of the patients’ overall health, values and goals. This suggests general practitioners (GPs) should attempt to facilitate patient involvement in decision-making. In practice this is often challenging. In this qualitative study, we explored GPs’ perspectives on the importance of discussing patients’ goals and preferences, and the role patient preferences play in medicines management and prioritisation. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs from Australia (n = 32). Participants were purposively sampled to recruit GPs with variation in experience level and geographic location. Transcribed audio-recordings of interviews were coded using Framework Analysis. Results The results showed that most GPs recognised some value in understanding older patients’ goals and preferences regarding their medicines. Most reported some discussions of goals and preferences with patients, but often this was initiated by the patient. Practical barriers were reported such as limited time during busy consultations to discuss issues beyond acute problems. GPs differed on the following main themes: 1) definition and perception of patients’ goals, 2) relationship with the patient, 3) approach to medicines management and prioritisation. We observed that GPs preferred one of three different practice patterns in their approach to patients’ goals in medicines decisions: 1) goals and preferences considered lower priority – ‘Directive’; 2) goals seen as central – ‘Goal-oriented’; 3) goals and preferences considered but not explicitly elicited – ‘Tacit’. Conclusions This study explores how GPs differ in their approach to eliciting patients’ goals and preferences, and how these differences are operationalised in the context of older adults taking multiple medicines. Although there are challenges in providing care that aligns with patients’ goals and preferences, this study shows how complex decisions are made between GPs and their older patients in clinical practice. This work may inform future research that investigates how GPs can best incorporate the priorities of older people in decision-making around medicines. Developing practical support strategies may assist clinicians to involve patients in discussions about their medicines.