Comparing helpful and hindering processes in good and poor outcome cases: A qualitative metasynthesis of eight Hermeneutic Single Case Efficacy Design studies.

Objective: We tested qualitative metasynthesis of a series of Hermeneutic Single Case Efficacy Design (HSCED) studies as a method for comparing within-session processes that may explain good and poor therapeutic outcome. Method: We selected eight HSCED studies according to change in clients' scores on the Strathclyde Inventory (SI), a brief self-report instrument used to measure outcome in person-centered psychotherapy. Four of the case studies investigated the experience of clients whose pre-post change in SI scores showed improvement by the end of therapy, and the other four focused on clients whose change in SI scores indicated deterioration. We conducted a qualitative metasynthesis, adopting a generic descriptive-interpretive approach to analyze and compare the data generated by the HSCED studies. Results: In contrast to improvers, deteriorators appeared to be less ready to engage in therapeutic work at the beginning of therapy, and found the process more difficult; their therapists were less able to respond to these difficulties in a responsive, empathic manner; deteriorators were less able to cope successfully with changes of therapist and, eventually, gave up on therapy. Conclusion: We found that our qualitative metasynthesis of a series of HSCED studies produced a plausible explanation for the contrasting outcomes that occurred.

Characteristics and prevalence of hardcore smokers attending UK general practitioners.

BACKGROUND: Smoking remains a public health problem and although unsolicited GPs' advice against smoking causes between one and three percent of smokers to stop, a significant proportion of smokers are particularly resistant to the notion of stopping smoking. These resistant smokers have been called "hardcore smokers" and although 16% of smokers in the community are hardcore, little is known about hardcore smokers presenting to primary care physicians. Consequently, this study reports the characteristics and prevalence of hardcore smokers attending UK GPs. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey using data from two different research projects was conducted. Data for this analysis had been collected from surgery consultation sessions with 73 GPs in Leicestershire, England, (42 GPs from one project). Research assistants distributed pre-consultation questionnaires to 4147 adults attending GPs' surgery sessions. Questionnaires identified regular smokers, the proportion of hardcore smokers and their characteristics. Non-hardcore and hardcore smokers' ages, gender and nicotine addiction levels were compared. RESULTS: 1170 regular smokers attended surgery sessions and, 16.1% (95% CI, 14.1 to 18.4) were hardcore smokers. Hardcore smokers had higher levels of nicotine addiction than others (p = 0.000), measured by the Heaviness of Smoking Index and were more likely to be male [50.5% hardcore versus 35.3% non-hardcore, (OR = 1.88, 95% CI = 1.4 to 2.6)] but no age differences were observed between groups. CONCLUSION: A significant minority of the smokers who present in general practice are resistant to the notion of smoking cessation and these smokers are more heavily nicotine addicted than others. Although clinical guidelines suggest that GPs should regularly advise all smokers against smoking, it is probable that hardcore smokers do not respond positively to this and help to make up the 97%-99% of smokers who do not quit after being advised to stop smoking by GPs. General practitioners need to find approaches for raising the issue of smoking during consultations in ways that do not reinforce the negative opinions of hardcore smokers concerning smoking cessation.