Modelos teóricos de promoción de la salud en la práctica habitual en atención primaria de salud / Theoretical models of health promotion in primary healthcare everyday practice

OBJETIVO: Comprender a qué modelos teóricos se ajusta la práctica actual de la prevención primaria y promoción de la salud en atención primaria de salud en diferentes centros de salud de siete comunidades autónomas de España, según los/las profesionales de distintas disciplinas de este ámbito asistencial. MÉTODO: Investigación cualitativa descriptiva en la que participaron 145 profesionales de 14 centros de salud de siete comunidades autónomas de España. El muestreo fue teórico. Se realizaron 14 grupos de discusión. El análisis de datos se realizó siguiendo procedimientos del análisis de contenido temático y de acuerdo con siete modelos teóricos de promoción de la salud a nivel micro, meso y macro. RESULTADOS: Las prácticas de los profesionales de los centros participantes en relación con las actividades de prevención primaria y promoción de la salud se adhieren principalmente a modelos intrapersonales, centrándose en ayudar a que las personas se empoderen aumentando la conciencia de riesgo y de los beneficios del cambio en los comportamientos, y guiándolas en la implementación de un comportamiento saludable. Algunos/as profesionales realizan actividades que encajan en modelos interpersonales, implicando a la familia y al propio profesional en las estrategias. Solo en algunos casos las prácticas actuales encajan en modelos comunitarios de promoción de la salud. CONCLUSIONES: Las prácticas de prevención primaria y promoción de la salud de los profesionales de atención primaria siguen principalmente modelos intrapersonales, en algunos casos modelos interpersonales y más puntualmente modelos comunitarios. Es necesario potenciar la participación de la ciudadanía y la orientación comunitaria de los servicios de atención primaria de salud

OBJECTIVE: To understand which theoretical models apply to current primary care practice of primary prevention and health promotion in a sample of primary health centres of seven autonomous regions in Spain according to the various professionals involved. METHOD: Descriptive qualitative research with the participation of 145 professionals from 14 primary health centres of seven autonomous regions in Spain. Theoretical sampling was used and 14 discussion groups were carried out. Data analysis followed thematic contents analysis procedures and was based on seven health promotion theoretical models at micro-, meso- and macro-level. RESULTS: Current practice of primary prevention and health promotion activities mainly follow intrapersonal models, which focus on assisting the empowerment of patients by means of raising awareness of risk and benefits of behavioural change and on guiding the adoption of the new healthy behaviour. To a lesser degree, the activities of some professionals adhere to interpersonal models, which involve also the family and the health professional. In only a few instances community models of health promotion were used. CONCLUSIONS: Primary prevention and health promotion practice of primary healthcare professionals follow mainly intrapersonal models, few cases use interpersonal models and community models are only occasionally employed. Advance of public participation and community orientation in primary healthcare services is needed

Comparing watchful waiting with antidepressants for the management of subclinical depression symptoms to mild-moderate depression in primary care: a systematic review.

Background: The benefits of watchful waiting (WW) over antidepressants (ADs) for the treatment of depression in primary care (PC) are unclear. Objective: We aimed to systematically review the evidence supporting either WW or ADs for the treatment of subclinical depressive symptoms and mild-moderate depression in a PC setting. Methods: This systematic review was registered at PROSPERO (42016036345). Four electronic sources (EMBASE, PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Knowledge) were systematically searched from inception to November 2016 for controlled trials comparing WW and ADs in PC following established guidelines. The studies had to include adult population with new symptoms of subclinical depression or mild-moderate depression. Patients in the intervention group should receive a WW approach, while patients in the control group underwent treatment with ADs. The abstraction form included information on the setting, characteristics of the study population, total sample size, size of the control and intervention groups and date of the study. Outcome measures and variability were extracted. Results: The scarcity of studies and the considerable clinical and methodological heterogeneity discouraged us from performing a meta-analysis. Three articles were included and qualitatively synthesized. There was no evidence for the superiority of one treatment option over the other, although two of the studies suggested small differences in favour of ADs when less conservative analyses were conducted (per protocol analysis and analysis not adjusted for missingness predictors). Conclusions: Superiority was not demonstrated by either treatment option. More robust evidence is needed to inform recommendations for the management of depressive symptoms in PC.