RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In the care of patients with persevering (‘treatment-resistant’) persistant physical symptoms (PPS), problems are common. With this study, we want to identify starting points for improvement of care, including suggestions for the role of mental health care. AIM: Using the profile for persevering PPS we will estimate the prevalence, describe characteristics of this patient group and map problems encountered in their care. METHOD: Online survey in general practitioners (GPs). RESULTS: The response rate to the survey was 12.8%. The mean estimated prevalence of persevering PPS in general practice was 0.7% (corresponding to an estimated 122,500 patients throughout the Netherlands). Many patients encountered iatrogenic harm, experience societal problems and limitations in mobility and ADL independence. Although there was a general increased use of health care in these patients, some also avoided care or were under-treated. In the persistence of symptoms, patient-related factors played a role (like insisting on further somatic diagnostic tests, lack of motivation for PPS-specific treatment), but health-care related factors, like rejection for care or a lack of regional treatment options for patients with PPS, also had a causal role. CONCLUSION: Almost every GP experiences problems in the care for patients with persevering PPS. Mental health care professionals can support the GP better, by optimizing options for consultation and referral.
Asunto(s)
Medicina General , Humanos , Países Bajos , Masculino , Femenino , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , PrevalenciaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) is advised in the treatment guideline for depressive disorders. However, it’s unclear if SDM contributes to the optimization of care. AIM: To provide an overview of the effects of SDM within the treatment of depression on treatment outcome, patient satisfaction and adherence through a meta-analysis and systematic review. METHOD: In a literature search (PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase), randomised controlled studies with patients who suffer from depression or depressive symptoms were selected. The effect of a SDM intervention previous to treatment was compared to no SDM intervention on the outcome measures. Effect sizes were computed with random effects models and risk of bias was assessed. RESULTS: Five studies were included (N = 850). SDM did not result in superior treatment outcome (Cohen’s d = 0.02;
95%-BI:-0.12-0,16; p = 0.773) and adherence (Cohen’s d = 0.29; 95%-BI:-0.01-0.58; p = 0.056). SDM did lead to higher patient satisfaction with a medium-large effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.53; 95%-BI:0,17-0.90; p = .004). CONCLUSION: SDM resulted in higher patient satisfaction, no effects were found regarding treatment outcome and adherence. However, operationalisation of SDM in the studies were variable. SDM appears to be a versatile construct in clinical practice.