BACKGROUND: There is much debate over when it is appropriate to intervene medically for psychological distress, and limited evidence on patients' perspectives about a broad range of possible treatment options. It is currently unclear whether preferences may differ for those patients with milder symptoms compared to those experiencing more severe distress. AIM: To determine patient preferences for professional, informal, and alternative help for psychological distress in primary care, and the impact of their current mental state on these. DESIGN OF STUDY: Cross-sectional survey in seven general practices across suburban/urban London. METHOD: Participants were 1357 consecutive general practice attenders aged 18 years and over. The main outcome measure was the General Health Questionnaire 12-item version and a questionnaire on help-seeking preferences. RESULTS: Overall, only 47% of participants reported wanting 'some help' if feeling stressed, worried, or low and it was affecting their daily life. Those currently experiencing mild-to-moderate distress preferred informal sources of help such as friends/family support, relaxation/yoga, exercise/sport, or massage along with general advice from their GP and talking therapies. Self-help (books/leaflets or computer/internet) was not popular at any level of distress, and less favoured by those with mild-to-moderate distress (odds ratio [OR] = 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.35 to 0.70). Those experiencing severe distress were much more likely to want talking therapies (OR = 3.43, 95% CI = 2.85 to 4.14), tablets (OR = 3.07, 95% CI = 2.00 to 4.71), and support groups (OR = 3.07, 95% CI = 1.72 to 5.47). CONCLUSION: People with mild-to-moderate distress appear to prefer informal sources of help and those involving human contact, compared to medication or self-help. This has implications for the implementation of potential interventions for psychological distress in primary care.
BACKGROUND: There is much debate over when it is appropriate to intervene medically for psychological distress, and limited evidence on patients' perspectives about a broad range of possible treatment options. It is currently unclear whether preferences may differ for those patients with milder symptoms compared to those experiencing more severe distress. AIM: To determine patient preferences for professional, informal, and alternative help for psychological distress in primary care, and the impact of their current mental state on these. DESIGN OF STUDY: Cross-sectional survey in seven general practices across suburban/urban London. METHOD:Participants were 1357 consecutive general practice attenders aged 18 years and over. The main outcome measure was the General Health Questionnaire 12-item version and a questionnaire on help-seeking preferences. RESULTS: Overall, only 47% of participants reported wanting 'some help' if feeling stressed, worried, or low and it was affecting their daily life. Those currently experiencing mild-to-moderate distress preferred informal sources of help such as friends/family support, relaxation/yoga, exercise/sport, or massage along with general advice from their GP and talking therapies. Self-help (books/leaflets or computer/internet) was not popular at any level of distress, and less favoured by those with mild-to-moderate distress (odds ratio [OR] = 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.35 to 0.70). Those experiencing severe distress were much more likely to want talking therapies (OR = 3.43, 95% CI = 2.85 to 4.14), tablets (OR = 3.07, 95% CI = 2.00 to 4.71), and support groups (OR = 3.07, 95% CI = 1.72 to 5.47). CONCLUSION:People with mild-to-moderate distress appear to prefer informal sources of help and those involving human contact, compared to medication or self-help. This has implications for the implementation of potential interventions for psychological distress in primary care.
Authors: R C Kessler; J Soukup; R B Davis; D F Foster; S A Wilkey; M I Van Rompay; D M Eisenberg Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: R M Hirschfeld; M B Keller; S Panico; B S Arons; D Barlow; F Davidoff; J Endicott; J Froom; M Goldstein; J M Gorman; R G Marek; T A Maurer; R Meyer; K Phillips; J Ross; T L Schwenk; S S Sharfstein; M E Thase; R J Wyatt Journal: JAMA Date: 1997 Jan 22-29 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: A F Jorm; H Christensen; J Medway; A E Korten; P A Jacomb; B Rodgers Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 4.328
Authors: Koen Demyttenaere; Ronny Bruffaerts; Jose Posada-Villa; Isabelle Gasquet; Viviane Kovess; Jean Pierre Lepine; Matthias C Angermeyer; Sebastian Bernert; Giovanni de Girolamo; Pierluigi Morosini; Gabriella Polidori; Takehiko Kikkawa; Norito Kawakami; Yutaka Ono; Tadashi Takeshima; Hidenori Uda; Elie G Karam; John A Fayyad; Aimee N Karam; Zeina N Mneimneh; Maria Elena Medina-Mora; Guilherme Borges; Carmen Lara; Ron de Graaf; Johan Ormel; Oye Gureje; Yucun Shen; Yueqin Huang; Mingyuan Zhang; Jordi Alonso; Josep Maria Haro; Gemma Vilagut; Evelyn J Bromet; Semyon Gluzman; Charles Webb; Ronald C Kessler; Kathleen R Merikangas; James C Anthony; Michael R Von Korff; Philip S Wang; Traolach S Brugha; Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola; Sing Lee; Steven Heeringa; Beth-Ellen Pennell; Alan M Zaslavsky; T Bedirhan Ustun; Somnath Chatterji Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-06-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Irving Kirsch; Brett J Deacon; Tania B Huedo-Medina; Alan Scoboria; Thomas J Moore; Blair T Johnson Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Erica C G van Geffen; Helga Gardarsdottir; Rolf van Hulten; Liset van Dijk; Antoine C G Egberts; Eibert R Heerdink Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Andrea Fogarty; Zachary Steel; Philip B Ward; Katherine M Boydell; Grace McKeon; Simon Rosenbaum Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-21 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Fania R Gärtner; Sarah M Ketelaar; Odile Smeets; Linda Bolier; Eva Fischer; Frank J H van Dijk; Karen Nieuwenhuijsen; Judith K Sluiter Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-05-10 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Patrick Lombardo; Paul Vaucher; Nader Haftgoli; Bernard Burnand; Bernard Favrat; François Verdon; Thomas Bischoff; Lilli Herzig Journal: BMC Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Lilli Herzig; Nicole Mühlemann; Bernard Burnand; Bernard Favrat; Nader Haftgoli; François Verdon; Thomas Bischoff; Paul Vaucher Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2012-08-20 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Nigel Field; Philip Prah; Catherine H Mercer; Greta Rait; Michael King; Jackie A Cassell; Clare Tanton; Laura Heath; Kirstin R Mitchell; Soazig Clifton; Jessica Datta; Kaye Wellings; Anne M Johnson; Pam Sonnenberg Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-03-23 Impact factor: 2.692