24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Facilitating professional liaison in collaborative care for depression in UK primary care; a qualitative study utilising normalisation process theory

      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

          Collaborative care (CC) is an organisational framework which facilitates the delivery of a mental health intervention to patients by case managers in collaboration with more senior health professionals (supervisors and GPs), and is effective for the management of depression in primary care. However, there remains limited evidence on how to successfully implement this collaborative approach in UK primary care. This study aimed to explore to what extent CC impacts on professional working relationships, and if CC for depression could be implemented as routine in the primary care setting.

          Methods

          This qualitative study explored perspectives of the 6 case managers (CMs), 5 supervisors (trial research team members) and 15 general practitioners (GPs) from practices participating in a randomised controlled trial of CC for depression. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and data was analysed using a two-step approach using an initial thematic analysis, and a secondary analysis using the Normalisation Process Theory concepts of coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring with respect to the implementation of CC in primary care.

          Results

          Supervisors and CMs demonstrated coherence in their understanding of CC, and consequently reported good levels of cognitive participation and collective action regarding delivering and supervising the intervention. GPs interviewed showed limited understanding of the CC framework, and reported limited collaboration with CMs: barriers to collaboration were identified. All participants identified the potential or experienced benefits of a collaborative approach to depression management and were able to discuss ways in which collaboration can be facilitated.

          Conclusion

          Primary care professionals in this study valued the potential for collaboration, but GPs’ understanding of CC and organisational barriers hindered opportunities for communication. Further work is needed to address these organisational barriers in order to facilitate collaboration around individual patients with depression, including shared IT systems, facilitating opportunities for informal discussion and building in formal collaboration into the CC framework.

          Trial registration

          ISRCTN32829227 30/9/2008.

          Related collections

          Most cited references12

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Collaborative care for depression: a cumulative meta-analysis and review of longer-term outcomes.

          Depression is common in primary care but is suboptimally managed. Collaborative care, that is, structured care involving a greater role of nonmedical specialists to augment primary care, has emerged as a potentially effective candidate intervention to improve quality of primary care and patient outcomes. To quantify the short-term and longer-term effectiveness of collaborative care compared with standard care and to understand mechanisms of action by exploring between-study heterogeneity, we conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials that compared collaborative care with usual primary care in patients with depression. We searched MEDLINE (from the beginning of 1966), EMBASE (from the beginning of 1980), CINAHL (from the beginning of 1980), PsycINFO (from the beginning of 1980), the Cochrane Library (from the beginning of 1966), and DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness) (from the beginning of 1985) databases from study inception to February 6, 2006. We found 37 randomized studies including 12 355 patients with depression receiving primary care. Random effects meta-analysis showed that depression outcomes were improved at 6 months (standardized mean difference, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.32), and evidence of longer-term benefit was found for up to 5 years (standardized mean difference, 0.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.001-0.31). When exploring determinants of effectiveness, effect size was directly related to medication compliance and to the professional background and method of supervision of case managers. The addition of brief psychotherapy did not substantially improve outcome, nor did increased numbers of sessions. Cumulative meta-analysis showed that sufficient evidence had emerged by 2000 to demonstrate the statistically significant benefit of collaborative care. Collaborative care is more effective than standard care in improving depression outcomes in the short and longer terms. Future research needs to address the implementation of collaborative care, particularly in settings other than the United States.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Qualitative research and the problem of judgement: lessons from interviewing fellow professionals.

            Qualitative research methods are recognized increasingly as valuable tools for primary care research, and add an extra dimension to quantitative work. The aim of this study was to illustrate the benefits and problems attending the dual role of clinician/qualitative researcher. As part of two studies employing semi-structured interviews of GPs in a North-West conurbation, about the topics of consultations on chronic low back pain and drug misuse in primary care, respondents' views on their interaction with a GP researcher were explored. Access to the GP by the interviewing GP was easier when the GP researcher was known to the respondent. Such prior knowledge, however, may then influence the content of the data and the manner in which the GP researcher is perceived. During the interview itself, where respondents recognized the researcher as a clinician, interviews were broader in scope and provided richer and more personal accounts of attitudes and behaviour in clinical practice. The GP was also identified as an expert and judge, not just of clinical decision making but also about moral judgements made by GPs in their work. This will impact on the data obtained at interview and must be taken into consideration when the data are interpreted and analysed. Qualitative research techniques increasingly are advocated as appropriate for research on and in general practice. The professional identity of the researcher plays an important part in constructing the kind of data obtained in such studies, and this must be made apparent in reporting and discussions of such qualitative work.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Collaborative care for depression in UK primary care: a randomized controlled trial

              Psychological Medicine, 38(2), 279-287
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                BMC Fam Pract
                BMC Fam Pract
                BMC Family Practice
                BioMed Central
                1471-2296
                2014
                1 May 2014
                : 15
                : 78
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre for Primary Care, Institute of Population Health, Williamson Building, Oxford Road, University of Manchester, M13 9PL, Manchester, UK
                [2 ]School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1TU, UK
                [3 ]University of Exeter Medical School, Haighton Building, St Luke’s Campus, Heavitree Road, EX1 2 LU, Exeter, UK
                [4 ]Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK
                Article
                1471-2296-15-78
                10.1186/1471-2296-15-78
                4030004
                24885746
                90d6d489-1098-4549-849d-4fd538fd99f8
                Copyright © 2014 Coupe et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 30 September 2013
                : 21 March 2014
                Categories
                Commentary

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article