General practitioners' experiences of providing somatic care for patients with severe mental illness: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Patients dealing with severe mental illnesses (SMI) often face suboptimal clinical outcomes and higher mortality rates due to a range of factors, including undetected physical health conditions. The provision of care for individuals with SMI is frequently disjointed, as they engage with diverse healthcare providers. Despite this fragmentation, primary care, particularly general practitioners (GPs), assumes a pivotal role in the care of SMI patients. Our study aimed to delve into the first-hand experiences of GPs in delivering somatic care to SMI patients, concentrating on the challenges they encounter and the strategies they employ to navigate these difficulties. METHODS: We conducted in-depth interviews with fifteen GPs, utilizing a semi-structured interview guide, supplemented by ethnographic observations during clinical consultations in general practice. Through inductive coding, interview transcripts and observational field notes were systematically analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). The findings were then deliberated upon within the author group. RESULTS: GPs revealed that managing the chronic somatic care of SMI patients posed significant challenges. These challenges encompassed the multifaceted needs of patients, their behavior tied to symptoms, a lack of care continuity, and overarching time constraints. To tackle these challenges, the GPs had devised various strategies. However, all participants underscored the critical importance of having adequate time to properly prepare for, conduct, and follow up on consultations. CONCLUSION: The GPs' interactions with SMI patients brought numerous challenges, although treating these patients were concurrently acknowledged as vital and fulfilling. The findings suggest that increased allocated time in general practice consultations for patients with SMI is important to support the somatic treatment requirements of this patient group.

Rethinking the logic of early diagnosis in cancer.

To reduce morbidity and mortality of cancer, more countries have implemented strategies to detect cancer, based on the logic of 'the sooner the better'. Time is thereby an essential component in how cancer research, policies, and prevention are practiced today. Where the logic of early diagnosis benefits some, the logic also produces harms. In this article, we use a cross-disciplinary case-study design to discuss how different notions of time and linearity are essential in today's research ontology of cancer, describe the individual and societal consequences of such ontology, and invite a rethinking of time in cancer. Drawing on theoretical concepts of time together with cancer epidemiological, historical and ethnographical data, we analyse how the logic of early diagnosis has been established as a stable concept. Although evidence supporting the logic points in different directions, the message 'the sooner the better' is currently not being challenged by research, policy or society. This at least partly, can be explained by a linear perception of time and societal traces of neoliberalism and acceleration in our society together with cancer still being a somewhat enigmatic disease that requires acute action. To support a sustainable healthcare sector, we argue there is a need to nuance the logic of early diagnosis. Continuing the linear perception of symptoms and cancer, risks doing more harm than good by making more people patients unnecessarily and by spending health resources on those with the least need.

Challenges in reaching patients with severe mental illness for trials in general practice-a convergent mixed methods study based on the SOFIA pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe mental illness (SMI) die prematurely due to undetected and inadequate treatment of somatic illnesses. The SOFIA pilot study was initiated to mend this gap in health inequity. However, reaching patients with SMI for intervention research has previously proven difficult. This study aimed to investigate the recruitment of patients with SMI for the SOFIA pilot study in 2021. METHODS: We used a mixed-method convergent design. The qualitative material comprised 20 interviews with general practitioners (GPs) and staff, during patient recruitment. The quantitative data consisted of process data on baseline characteristics, GPs reported reasons for excluding a patient, reported reasons for patients declining participation, and registered data from a Danish population of patients with SMI. We used thematic analysis in the qualitative analysis and descriptive statistics for the quantitative analysis. Pillar integration was used for integrating the material. RESULTS: Our findings show that selection bias occurred in the pilot study. We describe four main themes based on the integrated analysis that highlights selection issues: (1) poor data quality and inconsistency in defining severity definitions troubled identification and verification, (2) protecting the patient and maintaining practice efficiency, (3) being familiar with the patient was important for a successful recruitment, and (4) in hindsight, the GPs questioned whether the target population was reached. CONCLUSIONS: In the light of theories of professions and street-level bureaucracy, we find that the main drivers of the patient selection bias occurring in the SOFIA pilot study were that 1) GPs and staff mended eligibility criteria to protect certain patients and/or to minimize workload and maintain efficiency in the practice 2) the data from the GP record systems and the digital assessment tool to assist recruitment was not optimal. Interventions targeting this patient group should carefully consider the recruitment strategy with a particular focus on professionals' discretionary practices and information technology pitfalls. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The pilot trial protocol was registered on the 5th of November 2020. The registration number is NCT04618250 .

The carbon footprint of overdiagnosis.

Overdiagnosis is the process of making people into patients unnecessarily. Besides undermining the quality of care and patient outcomes, overdiagnosis (and overuse) prompts the urge to look at how to reduce low-value care to face the climate crisis. It is estimated that 80% of the total CO2 emission from the healthcare sector stems from clinical activity and that 40% of this is low-value care. This review finds that we need research on the benefits and harms of clinical activity in Denmark to provide evidence-based reforms minimizing low-value care, thus cutting the CO2 emissions substantively in healthcare.

Older adults' perceptions of navigating eye healthcare in Denmark. A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Vision impairment can have an impact on cognition, health and social function. Vision loss may be avoided if detected early and treated promptly. Eye health is a minor topic in general practice, but the ongoing relationship between doctor and patient has the potential to assist the patient in navigating the healthcare system and guaranteeing timely healthcare service delivery. AIM: To explore the attitudes of older members of the public (MOP) of navigating primary sector eye healthcare in Denmark, with a focus on optometrists, practising ophthalmologists (PO), and general practitioners (GP). DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative study design set in the capital area of Denmark METHOD: Focus-group interviews performed in the spring of 2022 with 21 MOP. RESULTS: Older MOPs perceived optometrists and POs to be the most relevant health professionals to consult about eye health. MOPs identified several opportunities for enhancing the function of general practice that are currently unexplored. CONCLUSION: Older MOPs seek help from health professionals who are directly qualified to treat the symptoms of ageing that they are experiencing or expect to face in the near future. However, included MOPs identify relevant potentials for GPs' to address vision impairment. This includes a focus on the patient's general health and function, as well as potential comorbidities influencing treatment trajectories. The current denigration of general practice risks missing out on the potential benefits of robust engagement from general practice in eye health.

Generating Items for Measuring Needs-Based Quality of Life and Self-Perceived Health Inequity in Patients with Multimorbidity: Development of the MultiMorbidity Questionnaire (MMQ).

Purpose: To describe the processes of developing domains and items for the MultiMorbidity Questionnaire (MMQ), a multimorbidity-specific PROM for the assessment of Needs-based QoL. Patients and Methods: We developed items and domains for the MMQ through 17 qualitative content validity questionnaire interviews with adults with multimorbidity by testing items from an item bank (covering items with content inspired by existing Needs-based QoL measures for single diseases). The interviews alternated between an explorative part and more focused cognitive interview techniques. Results: Testing the 47 items from the first draft of the MMQ items showed that the Needs-based approach as a framework did not cover all the QoL aspects our informants stated as being important. Therefore, the conceptual framework was supplemented by Self-perceived health inequity, and new items were generated. MMQ, measuring Needs-based QoL (MMQ1) and Self-perceived health inequity (MMQ2), was assembled. MMQ1 covers the domains: "Physical ability" (10 items), "Limitations in everyday life" (15 items), "Worries" (11 items), "My social life" (11 items), "Self-image" (12 items), and "Personal finances" (2 items). Self-perceived health inequity proved to be a relevant framework for other aspects of QoL not covered by the Needs-based approach to QoL. MMQ2 covers the domains: "Experiences of being stigmatized" (five items), "Experiences of not being seen and heard" (four items), "Insufficient understanding of the burden of disease" (three items) and "Experiences of feeling powerless" (five items). Conclusion: We have developed the final MMQ draft, a multimorbidity-specific PROM for the assessment of Needs-based QoL (MMQ1) and Self-perceived health inequity (MMQ2) with high content validity (regarding content relevance and comprehensiveness). The final MMQ draft will be assessed for its psychometric properties using Modern Test Theory.

Measuring needs-based quality of life and self-perceived health inequity in patients with multimorbidity: investigating psychometric measurement properties of the MultiMorbidity Questionnaire (MMQ) using primarily Rasch models.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity is a burden for the individual and to the healthcare sector worldwide, leading to a rising number of intervention studies towards this patient group. To measure a possible effect of such interventions, an adequate patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) is essential. The aim of this study was to assess the draft MultiMorbidity Questionnaire (MMQ), a PROM measuring needs-based quality of life and self-perceived inequity in patients with multimorbidity, for its psychometric properties and to adjust it accordingly to create a content- and construct valid measure. METHODS: The draft MMQ was sent to 1198 eligible respondents with multimorbidity. Modern test theory and classical test theory were used to analyse data. Dimensionality of the suggested domains and invariance of the items were assessed through item analysis, examining the fit to a psychometric model. RESULTS: The psychometric analyses were based on responses from 390 patients with multimorbidity. In the MMQ1, measuring needs-based QoL, evidence of six unidimensional scales was confirmed: physical ability (6 items), worries (6 items), limitations in everyday life (10 items), my social life (6 items), self-image (6 items), and personal finances (3 items). The psychometric analyses of the MMQ2 outlined four unidimensional scales measuring the feeling of Self-perceived inequity in patients with multimorbidity: experiences of being stigmatised (4-5 items), Experiences of insufficient understanding of the burden of disease (3 items), Experiences of not being seen and heard (4 items), Experience of powerlessness (5 items). These scales are relevant for patients' with multimorbidity encounters with (1) their general pratitioner, (2) staff at their general practitioner's surgery, (3) healthcare professionals, (4) staff at the local authorities and (5) friends, family, and others. CONCLUSION: The MMQ, a QoL measure for patients living with multimorbidity has been validated: the MMQ1 is a condition-specific PROM with adequate psychometric properties designed to measure needs-based QoL. The MMQ2 measuring Self-perceived inequity, has also been found to possess adequate measurement properties; however due to the risk of type 2 error a revalidation of MMQ2 is suggested.

Questioning 'Informed Choice' in Medical Screening: The Role of Neoliberal Rhetoric, Culture, and Social Context.

Participation in medical screening programs is presented as a voluntary decision that should be based on an informed choice. An informed choice is often emphasized to rely on three assumptions: (1) the decision-maker has available information about the benefits and harms, (2) the decision-maker can understand and interpret this information, and (3) the decision-maker can relate this information to personal values and preferences. In this article, we empirically challenge the concept of informed choice in the context of medical screening. We use document analysis to analyze and build upon findings and interpretations from previously published articles on participation in screening. We find that citizens do not receive neutral or balanced information about benefits and harms, yet are exposed to manipulative framing effects. The citizens have high expectations about the benefits of screening, and therefore experience cognitive strains when informed about the harm. We demonstrate that decisions about screening participation are informed by neoliberal arguments of personal responsibility and cultural healthism, and thus cannot be regarded as decisions based on individual values and preferences independently of context. We argue that the concept of informed choice serves as a power technology for people to govern themselves and can be considered an implicit verification of biopower.

DETECT: DEveloping and testing a model to identify preventive vision loss among older paTients in gEneral praCTice - protocol for a complex intervention in Denmark.

INTRODUCTION: The number of people living with visual impairment is increasing. Visual impairment causes loss in quality of life and reduce self-care abilities. The burden of disease is heavy for people experiencing visual impairment and their relatives. The severity and progression of age-related eye diseases are dependent on the time of detection and treatment options, making timely access to healthcare critical in reducing visual impairment. General practice plays a key role in public health by managing preventive healthcare, diagnostics and treatment of chronic conditions. General practitioners (GPs) coordinate services from other healthcare professionals. More involvement of the primary sector could potentially be valuable in detecting visual impairment. METHODS: We apply the Medical Research Council framework for complex interventions to develop a primary care intervention with the GP as a key actor, aimed at identifying and coordinating care for patients with low vision. The development process will engage patients, relatives and relevant health professional stakeholders. We will pilot test the feasibility of the intervention in a real-world general practice setting. The intervention model will be developed through a participatory approach using qualitative and creative methods such as graphical facilitation. We aim to explore the potentials and limitations of general practice in relation to detection of preventable vision loss. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is obtained from local authority and the study meets the requirements from the Declaration of Helsinki. Dissemination is undertaken through research papers and to the broader public through podcasts and patient organisations.

Spaces out of reach? Service user involvement in residents' meetings at recovery-oriented social housing facilities for young people with mental health disorders.

Through anthropological fieldwork among people with severe mental health disorders, this article focuses on these service users' interactions and relations with the professionals and with other service users at recovery-oriented housing facilities in Denmark. We discuss how recovery-oriented spaces designed for the service users may feel out of reach to them, hence making the service users feel awkward and reluctant to participate. The study shows how service users, initially recognized as "unengaged," rather are to be understood as active actors involved in their recovery and forming social bonds. The research seeks to put forward new perspectives on recovery as a concept in psychosocial rehabilitation, arguing that recovery and healing may take up different forms in different spaces and that recognizing services users' enactment of reluctancy and disengagements could serve as an important part of recovery work in rehabilitation.

Conceptualisation of a measurement framework for Needs-based Quality of Life among patients with multimorbidity.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity is both an individual and societal problem. For society, patients with multimorbidity increase healthcare costs. For the individual, living with multimorbidity is complex, and there is an inverse relationship between a patient's Quality of Life (QoL) and their number of chronic conditions. Numerous intervention studies target these problems, yet there is no multimorbidity-specific patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) developed specifically for this group with adequate measurement properties to assess QoL. This study explores what overall needs regarding QoL are affected by living with multimorbidity through qualitative interviews. With this, we conceptualise Needs-based QoL specifically for this group, ensuring high content validity (regarding relevance and comprehensiveness) of using the Needs-based approach to measure their QoL. This is essential as this preliminary study leads to the development of the MultiMorbidity Questionnaire (MMQ), a PROM measuring QoL among patients with multimorbidity. METHODS: This study draws upon qualitative interviews with fifteen patients with multimorbidity based on a semi-structured interview guide following the Needs-based approach. This approach allowed the patients to cover needs relevant for their QoL in relation to the complexities of living with multimorbidity. The transcribed interviews were thematically analysed, inspired by Braun and Clarke's reflexive approach. RESULTS: Analysis of the interviews resulted in the construction of six intertwined domains relevant to patients with multimorbidity, covering their Needs-based QoL; "Physical ability", "Self-determination", "Security", "Partner and social life", "Self-image", and "Personal finances". "Physical limitations" and "Personal finances" were stated as core needs implicating the other domains. CONCLUSION: This study shows six intertwined overall domains relevant for patients with multimorbidity regarding their Needs-based QoL; "Physical ability", "Self-determination", "Security", "Partner and social life", "Self-image", and "Personal finances". These needs are relevant in a Danish context, with a generally high standard of living. Based on this conceptual framework of Need-based QoL for patients with multimorbidity, we will develop items for a new patient-reported outcome measure called the MMQ.

[Social inequality in health].

Social inequality is a significant challenge in the Danish healthcare system, and in general practice the inequality has many faces. To give more to those who need most is a difficult task, and research shows the diversity of the challenges experienced in the primary healthcare sector. However, as argued in this review, through innovative research we may be able to find new directions in how to provide patient centered healthcare, and in taking on this task general practice is centrally positioned as the place at which most patients are seen on a regular basis.

Experiences of barriers to trans-sectoral treatment of patients with severe mental illness. A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe mental illness (SMI) have shorter life expectancy than people without SMI, mainly due to overmortality from physical diseases. They are treated by professionals in three different health and social care sectors with sparse collaboration between them, hampering coherent treatment. Previous studies have shown difficulties involved in establishing such collaboration. As the preparatory phase of an intervention to improve physical health of people with SMI and increase collaboration across sector borders, we explored different actors' experiences of barriers for collaboration. METHOD: We collected qualitative data from patients, professionals in general practice, psychiatry and social psychiatry involved in the treatment of these patients. Data consisted of notes from meetings and observations, interviews, focus groups and workshops. Analysis was by Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. RESULTS: The study revealed many obstacles to collaboration and coherent treatment, including the consultation structures in general practice, sectors being subject to different legislation, and incompatible IT systems. Professionals in general practice and social psychiatry felt that they were left with the responsibility for actions taken by hospital psychiatry without opportunity to discuss their concerns with psychiatrists. There were also cultural differences between health care and social psychiatry, expressed in ideology and language. Social psychiatry had an existential approach to recovery, whereas the views of health professionals were linked to symptom control and based on outcomes. Meanwhile, patients were left in limbo between these separate ideologies with no leadership in place to promote dialogue and integrate treatments between the sectors. CONCLUSION: Many obstacles to integrated trans-sectoral treatment of patients with SMI seem related to a lack of an overriding leadership and organizational support to establish collaboration and remove barriers related to legislation and IT. However, professional and ideological barriers also contribute. Psychiatry does not consider general practice to be part of the treatment team although general practitioners are left with responsibility for decisions taken in psychiatry; and different ideologies and treatment principles in psychiatry and municipal social psychiatry hamper the dialogue between them. There is a need to rethink the organization to avoid that the three sectors live autonomous lives with different cultures and lack of collaboration.

[Involvement of patients has not been fully implemented in Danish health care]. / Patientinddragelse er endnu ikke fuldt implementeret i sundhedsvæsenet.

In Denmark, there is a focus on patient involvement. Health professionals want to involve patients, but have diverse interpretations of what this entails, which complicates knowledge dissemination. Interventions are scattered and diverse, and often do not systematically involve patients' knowledge. Studies have shown that patients want to be involved and contribute with knowledge, but this only happens to a limited degree. Involvement of patients is often limited to involving their resources in the form of self care rather than integrating their knowledge into their treatment and care.