Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
"I would not want the mechanic to direct me to an engine repair manual": a qualitative analysis of provider perspectives on low-intensity treatments for patients on waiting lists.
Peipert, Allison; Adams, Sydney; Lorenzo-Luaces, Lorenzo.
Affiliation
  • Peipert A; Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University Bloomington, 1101 E 10th Street, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA.
  • Adams S; Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University Bloomington, 1101 E 10th Street, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA.
  • Lorenzo-Luaces L; Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University Bloomington, 1101 E 10th Street, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA. lolorenz@iu.edu.
BMC Psychiatry ; 23(1): 600, 2023 08 17.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37592212
BACKGROUND: Low-intensity treatments (LITs), such as bibliotherapy or online self-help, have the potential to reach more individuals than traditional face-to-face care by circumventing many of the common barriers to mental health treatment. Despite substantial research evidence supporting their usability and efficacy across several clinical presentations, prior work suggests that mental health providers rarely recommend LITs for patients waiting for treatment. METHODS: The present study analyzed provider open responses to a prompt asking about perceived barriers, thoughts, and comments related to additional treatment resources for patients on treatment waiting lists. We surveyed 141 practicing mental health providers, 65 of whom responded to an open text box with additional thoughts on using LITs for patients on treatment waiting lists. Responses were qualitatively coded using a thematic coding process. RESULTS: Qualitative outcomes yielded 11 codes: patient appropriateness, research evidence, feasibility, patient barriers, liability, patient personal contact, additional resources, positive attitudes, trust in programs, systemic problems, and downplaying distress. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest providers are predominantly concerned about the potential of suggesting a LIT that would be ultimately inappropriate for their patient due to a lack of assessment of the patient's needs. Furthermore, providers noted ambiguity around the legal and ethical liability of recommending a LIT to someone who may not yet be a patient. Guidelines and standards for recommending LITs to patients on treatment waiting lists may help address ambiguity regarding their use in routine care.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Psychotherapy / Waiting Lists Type of study: Guideline / Qualitative_research Aspects: Ethics Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: BMC Psychiatry Journal subject: PSIQUIATRIA Year: 2023 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Estados Unidos Country of publication: Reino Unido

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Psychotherapy / Waiting Lists Type of study: Guideline / Qualitative_research Aspects: Ethics Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: BMC Psychiatry Journal subject: PSIQUIATRIA Year: 2023 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Estados Unidos Country of publication: Reino Unido