Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Published 19 March 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b663
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;338:b663
Christopher Dowrick, professor of primary medical care1, Geraldine M Leydon, senior research fellow2, Anita McBride, research fellow2, Amanda Howe, professor of primary care3, Hana Burgess, academic foundation trainee2, Pamela Clarke, research assistant1, Sue Maisey, research associate3, Tony Kendrick, professor of primary medical care2
1 University of Liverpool School of Population, Community and Behavioural Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GB, 2 University of Southampton Primary Medical Care Group, Aldermoor Health Centre, Southampton SO16 5ST, 3 University of East Anglia School of Medicine, Health Policy and Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ
Correspondence to: C Dowrick cfd{at}liverpool.ac.uk
Design Semistructured qualitative interview study, with purposive sampling and constant comparative analysis.
Participants 34 general practitioners and 24 patients.
Setting 38 general practices in three sites in England: Southampton, Liverpool, and Norfolk.
Results Patients generally favoured the measures of severity for depression, whereas general practitioners were generally cautious about the validity and utility of such measures and sceptical about the motives behind their introduction. Both general practitioners and patients considered that assessments of severity should be seen as one aspect of holistic care. General practitioners considered their practical wisdom and clinical judgment ("phronesis") to be more important than objective assessments and were concerned that the assessments reduced the human element of the consultation. Patients were more positive about the questionnaires, seeing them as an efficient and structured supplement to medical judgment and as evidence that general practitioners were taking their problems seriously through a full assessment. General practitioners and patients were aware of the potential for manipulation of indicators: for economic reasons for doctors and for patients to avoid stigma or achieve desired outcomes.
Conclusions Despite general practitioners caution about measures of severity for depression, these may benefit primary care consultations by increasing patients confidence that general practitioners are correct in their diagnosis and are making systematic efforts to assess and manage their mental health problems. Further education of primary care staff may optimise the use and interpretation of depression questionnaires.
© Dowrick et al 2009
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati What's this?
Read all Rapid Responses