Assessing mental health in primary care research using standardized scales: can it be carried out over the telephone?

2004 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 157-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. EVANS ◽  
D. KESSLER ◽  
G. LEWIS ◽  
T. J. PETERS ◽  
D. SHARP

Background. Telephone interviewing has economic and logistical advantages but has not been widely used in the UK. Most studies comparing face-to-face and telephone psychiatric assessment have been carried out in the US, often restricted to a population with known psychiatric disorder and involving comparisons between two separate sample groups rather than repeat interviews with the same group. The aim of the present study was to compare face-to-face and telephone administration of the 12-item General Health Questionnaire and the Revised Clinical Interview Schedule in a UK general practice sample.Method. Ninety-eight consecutive attenders at two general practices were assessed twice within 48 h. The order of face-to-face and telephone interviews was alternated.Results. There was no evidence that the mode of administration led to a bias in scores on the CIS-R. For the GHQ, those aged over 60 tended to score higher on the telephone. There was good agreement between face-to-face and telephone scores for both GHQ and CIS-R and good agreement for case definition. Participants had a strong preference for face-to-face interviews.Conclusions. Telephone assessment of mental health using the GHQ and CIS-R is a reasonable method to be used in primary care research in the UK with the limitation that telephone responses from older people might be different from face-to-face assessments for the GHQ. However, telephone interviewing appeared less acceptable and should probably be used in the context of established or ongoing personal contact between researcher and subject.

2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 138-144
Author(s):  
Sally Kendall

Abstract This editorial describes how research in primary health care can be used to influence policy. It draws on previous literature to give an example from the UK of how research in one part of primary care, the health-visiting service, has endeavoured to use evidence to influence policy and practice. The editorial considers frameworks for policy implementation such as Bardach’s eight phase approach and concepts that can inform policy implementation such as Lipsky’s Street-Level Bureaucrat approach.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Ben Hannigan

Abstract Wales is a small country, with an ageing population, high levels of population health need and an economy with a significant reliance on public services. Its health system attracts little attention, with analyses tending to underplay the differences between the four countries of the UK. This paper helps redress this via a case study of Welsh mental health policy, services and nursing practice. Distinctively, successive devolved governments in Wales have emphasised public planning and provision. Wales also has primary legislation addressing sustainability and future generations, safe nurse staffing and rights of access to mental health services. However, in a context in which gaps always exist between national policy, local services and face-to-face care, evidence points to the existence of tension between Welsh policy aspirations and realities. Mental health nurses in Wales have produced a framework for action, which describes practice exemplars and looks forward to a secure future for the profession. With policy, however enlightened, lacking the singular potency to bring about intended change, nurses as the largest of the professional groups involved in mental health care have opportunities to make a difference in Wales through leadership, influence and collective action.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e044221
Author(s):  
Brian McMillan ◽  
Gail Davidge ◽  
Lindsey Brown ◽  
Moira Lyons ◽  
Helen Atherton ◽  
...  

ObjectivesPrimary care records have traditionally served the needs and demands of clinicians rather than those of the patient. In England, general practices must promote and offer registered patients online access to their primary care record, and research has shown benefits to both patients and clinicians of doing so. Despite this, we know little about patients’ needs and expectations regarding online access to their record. This study explored what patients and carers want from online access to their electronic primary care health record, their experiences of using it, how they would like to interact with their record and what support they may need.DesignFocus groups and semistructured interviews using purposive sampling to achieve a good sociodemographic spread. Interviews were digitally audiorecorded, transcribed and coded using an established thematic approach.SettingFocus groups and interviews were conducted in community settings in the UK.ParticipantsFifty-four individuals who were either eligible for the National Health Service Health Check, living with more than one long-term condition or caring for someone else.ResultsParticipants views regarding online access were categorised into four main themes: awareness, capabilities, consequences and inevitability. Participants felt online access should be better promoted, and suggested a number of additional functions, such as better integration with other parts of the healthcare system. It was felt that online access could improve quality of care (eg, through increased transparency) but also have potential negative consequences (eg, by replacing face to face contact). A move towards more online records access was considered inevitable, but participants noted a need for additional support and training in using the online record, especially to ensure that health inequalities are not exacerbated.ConclusionsDiscussions with patients and carers about their views of accessing online records have provided useful insights into future directions and potential improvements for this service.


Author(s):  
Lilian Dudley

This article is part of a series on Primary Care Research in the African context and focuses on programme evaluation. Different types of programme evaluation are outlined: developmental, process, outcome and impact. Eight steps to follow in designing your programme evaluation are then described in some detail: engage stakeholders; establish what is known; describe the programme; define the evaluation and select a study design; define the indicators; planand manage data collection and analysis; make judgements and recommendations; and disseminate the findings. Other articles in the series cover related topics such as writing your research proposal, performing a literature review, conducting surveys with questionnaires, qualitative interviewing and approaches to quantitative and qualitative data analysis.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document