BackgroundGeneral practitioners (GPs) are considered to play a major role in detecting and managing substance abuse. However, little is known about how or why they decide to manage it. This study investigated the factors that influence GP behaviours with regard to the abuse of alcohol, illegal drugs, hypnotics, and tranquilisers among working Belgians.MethodsTwenty Belgian GPs were interviewed. De Vries’ Integrated Change Model was used to guide the interviews and qualitative data analyses.ResultsGPs perceived higher levels of substance abuse in urban locations and among lower socioeconomic groups. Guidelines, if they existed, were primarily used in Flanders. Specific training was unevenly applied but considered useful. GPs who accepted abuse management cited strong interpersonal skills and available multidisciplinary networks as facilitators.GPs relied on their clinical common sense to detect abuse or initiate management. Specific patients’ situations and their social, psychological, or professional dysfunctions were cited as cues to action.GPs were strongly influenced by their personal representations of abuse, which included the balance between their professional responsibilities toward their patients and the patients’ responsibilities in managing their own health as well the GPs’ abilities to cope with unsatisfying patient outcomes without reaching professional exhaustion. GPs perceived substance abuse along a continuum ranging from a chronic disease (whose management was part of their responsibility) to a moral failing of untrustworthy people. Alcohol and cannabis were more socially acceptable than other drugs. Personal experiences of emotional burdens (including those regarding substance abuse) increased feelings of empathy or rejection toward patients.Multidisciplinary practices and professional experiences were cited as important factors with regard to engaging GPs in substance abuse management. Time constraints and personal investments were cited as important barriers.Satisfaction with treatment was rare.ConclusionsMotivational factors, including subjective beliefs not supported by the literature, were central in deciding whether to manage cases of substance abuse. A lack of theoretical knowledge and training were secondary to personal attitudes and motivation. Personal development, emotional health, self-awareness, and self-care should be taught to and fostered among GPs to help them maintain a patient-centred focus. Health authorities should support collaborative care.
BackgroundThere are numerous definitions of general practice/family medicine (GP/FM) and primary health care (PHC), but the distinction between the two concepts is unclear.AimTo conduct a terminological analysis of a set of definitions of GP/FM and of PHC, to clarify the commonalities and differences between these two concepts.DesignSets of 20 definitions were collected in two 'bags of words' (one for GP/FM and one for PHC terms). A terminological analysis of these two collections was performed to prioritise the terms and analyse their universe of discourse.MethodThe two collections were extracted with VocabGrabber, configured in two 'term clouds' using Wordle, and further explored for similarities using Tropes. The main terms were analysed using the Aristotelian approach to the categorisation of things.ResultsAlthough continuity of care (characterised by a person-centred approach and shared decision making) is common to both sets, the two sets of definitions differ greatly in content. The main terms specific to GP/FM (community, medicine, responsibility, individual, problem, and needs) are different from those specific to PHC (home, team, promotion, collaborator, engagement, neighbourhood, and medical centre).ConclusionTerminological analysis of the definitions for GP/FM and PHC shows two overlapping but distinct entities, necessitating a different taxonomic approach and different bibliographic search strategies.
BackgroundIn Belgium, the management of sick leave involves general practitioners (GPs), occupational health physicians (OPs) and social insurance physicians (SIPs). A dysfunctional relationship among these physicians can impede a patient’s ability to return to work. The objective of this study was to identify ways to improve these physicians’ mutual collaboration.MethodsTwo consensus techniques were successively performed among the three professional groups. Eight nominal groups (NGs) gathered 74 field practitioners, and a two-round Delphi process involved 32 stakeholders.ResultsFrom the results, it appears that two areas (reciprocal knowledge and evolution of the legal and regulatory framework) are objects of consensus among the three medical group that were surveyed. Information transfer, particularly electronic transfer, was stressed as an important way to improve. The consensual proposals regarding interdisciplinary collaboration indicate specific and practical changes to be implemented when professionals are managing workers who are on sick leave. The collaboration process appeared to be currently more problematic, but the participants correctly identified the need for common training.ConclusionsThe three physician groups all agree regarding several inter-physician collaboration proposals. The study also revealed a latent conflict situation among the analysed professionals that can arise from a lack of mutual recognition.Practical changes or improvements must be included in an extended framework that involves the different determinants of interdisciplinary collaboration that are shown by theoretical models. Collaboration is a product of the actions and behaviours of various partners, which requires reciprocal knowledge and trust; collaboration also implies political and economic structures that are led by public health authorities.
Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is a severe and common mental disorder. A growing body of evidence suggests that stepped and/or collaborative care treatment models have several advantages for severely depressed patients and caretakers. However, despite the availability of these treatment strategies and guidance initiatives, many depressive patients are solely treated by the general practitioner (GP), and collaborative care is not common. In this paper, we review a selected set of international guidelines to inventory the best strategies for GPs and secondary mental health care providers to collaborate when treating depressed patients. Additionally, we systematically searched the literature, listing potential ways of cooperation, and potentially supporting tools. We conclude that the prevailing guidelines only include few and rather vague directions regarding the cooperation between GPs and specialised mental health practitioners. Inspiring recent studies, however, suggest that relatively little efforts may result in effective collaborative care and a broader implementation of the guidelines in general.
IntroductionProblematic benzodiazepine use is a global health issue. Although the adverse side effects of long-term use of benzodiazepines are well known, it remains difficult to implement interventions for discontinuation in primary care. Considering the success of blended care for the treatment of sleeping disorders and the support of substance use disorders, evidence suggests that a blended care approach, combining face-to-face consultations with the general practitioner with web-based self-learning by the patient, is beneficial for the discontinuation of chronic benzodiazepine use for primary insomnia in general practice. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of such an approach for the discontinuation of benzodiazepine and zolpidem, zopiclone and zaleplon drugs ((z-)BZD) use in the long term and evaluate the implementation process.Methods and analysisThis study is a multicentre, pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with 1200 patients, included by 120 general practitioners. Allocation to usual or blended care happens at the level of the general practice in a 1:1 ratio using a block randomisation system stratified per language. The study population consists of adult primary care patients who have been using (z-)BZD for primary insomnia on a daily basis for at least 6 months. Primary outcome measure is the proportion of patients that discontinued (z-)BZD at 12 months assessed by toxicological screening for (z-)BZD in urine. Secondary outcomes include discontinuation of (z-)BZD at 6 months, quality of life and the number of defined daily doses of (z-)BZD prescribed. Data will be collected using a study-specific online platform and analysed using the intention-to-treat approach. The process of implementing blended care will be evaluated in a nested study.Ethics and disseminationThis trial was approved by the Ethics Committee for Research of UZ/KU Leuven (ref. S61194). Study results will be disseminated via open-access, peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.Trial registration numberNCT03937180.
Although current guidelines recommend collaborative care for severely depressed patients, few patients get adequate treatment. In this study we aimed to identify the thresholds for interdisciplinary collaboration amongst practitioners when treating severely depressed patients. In addition, we aimed to identify specific and feasible steps that may add to improved collaboration amongst first and second level Belgian health care providers when treating depressed patients. In two standard focus groups (n = 8; n = 12), general practitioners and psychiatrists first outlined current practice and its shortcomings. In a next phase, the same participants were gathered in nominal groups to identify and prioritise steps that could give rise to improved collaboration. Thematic analyses were performed. Though some barriers for interdisciplinary collaboration may seem easy to overcome, participants stressed the importance of certain boundary conditions on a macro- (e.g., financing of care, secure communication technology) and meso-level (e.g., support for first level practitioner). Findings are discussed against the background of frameworks on collaboration in healthcare and recent developments in mental health care.
Background Efforts to address health literacy should favour a system-based approach with the dual aim both of fostering the material conditions and creating a work culture inside health care organisations that makes it easier for people to use information. The Vienna Health Literate Organisation (V-HLO) self-assessment tool is a German-speaking questionnaire for quality managers of health care organisations. Its objective is to provide a diagnostic of the strengths and weaknesses of the organisation in terms of health literacy. Our goal was to translate and culturally adapt this questionnaire for the French-speaking part of Belgium. Methods We followed the Translation, Review, Adjudication, Pretesting, and Documentation (TRAPD) team model for cross-cultural translation of questionnaires. We used cognitive interviews with quality experts to pre-test the translation. Results Cognitive interviews allowed us to improve the translation by removing certain ambiguities, providing contextual clarifications or rephrasing some items in such a way as to render them more culturally appropriate. Local experts generally judged the tool to be relevant and applicable to their context. The insight gained with regard to their cognitive process when completing the V-HLO allowed us to identify possible barriers to the adoption of the tool (such as difficulties in considering staff literacy as a relevant target for the tool, fear of overwhelming staff, a feeling that some items fell outside the scope of health literacy and lack of attention for integration of services with primary care) and could contribute to the future development of the tool. Conclusion We translated and adapted the V-HLO self-assessment tool for French. The French version of the V-HLO will now be implemented in our local context to assess whether it can make it easier for people to deal with the complexities of health care organisations. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-3955-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.