The ideal of biopsychosocial chronic care: how to make it real? A qualitative study among Dutch stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: Chronically ill patients often experience psychosocial problems in everyday life. A biopsychosocial approach is considered to be essential in chronic care. In Dutch primary health care the current biomedically oriented clinical practice may conflict with the biopsychosocial approach. This study is aimed to explore the views of Dutch stakeholders on achieving a biopsychosocial approach to the care of patients with chronic diseases. METHODS: In a qualitative explorative study design, we held semi-structured interviews with stakeholders, face-to-face or by telephone. Data were analysed using content analysis. Thirty representatives of Dutch patients with chronic illnesses, primary care professionals, policy makers, health inspectorate, health insurers, educational institutes and researchers were interviewed. RESULTS: Stakeholders were aware that a systematic biopsychosocial care approach is lacking in current practice. Opportunities for effective change are multidimensional. Achieving a biopsychosocial approach to care relates to active patient participation, the training of professionals, high-quality guidelines, protocols and tools, integrated primary care, research and financial issues. CONCLUSIONS: Although the principles and importance of the biopsychosocial model have been recognized, the provision of care that starts from the medical, emotional or social needs of individual patients does not fit in easily with the current Dutch health care system. All parties involved need to make a commitment to realize the ideal of biopsychosocial chronic care. Together they need to equip health professionals with skills to understand patients' multifaceted needs and to reward integrated biopsychosocial care. Patients need to be empowered to be active partners in their own care.

Children's mental health service use, neighbourhood socioeconomic deprivation, and social capital.

BACKGROUND: There is accumulating evidence that the shared social environment at the neighbourhood level exerts significant effects on health over and above individual level variables. The aim of this study was to assess the interactive influence of neighbourhood measures of socioeconomic deprivation and social capital (i. e. informal social control, social cohesion and trust) on children's mental health service use, independent of individual level confounders. METHODS: Two different data sources were used: 1) individual socioeconomic measures, derived from a case-control study in which case/control status indicated mental health service use or not, and 2) neighbourhood measures of socioeconomic deprivation and social capital. The data were subjected to multilevel logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Children living in more deprived neighbourhoods run a higher risk of coming into contact with mental health care services. The social capital variables (informal social control and social cohesion and trust) did not exert main effects, but strong trust and social cohesion between citizens in the neighbourhood mitigated the risk-increasing effect of socioeconomic deprivation on children's mental health service use. CONCLUSIONS: The deleterious effects of socioeconomic deprivation on mental health service use in children are sensitive to the context of cohesion and trust in neighbourhoods. Effects of deprivation on children's mental health cannot be interpreted without taking into account the context of social capital.