Patients' perspectives on antidepressant treatment in consultations with physicians

Shame in patient-health professional encounters: A scoping review

Shame can arise during patient-health professional encounters when discussing traumatising and stigmatising topics and can contribute to negative patient outcomes. This review aims to summarise what is known regarding shame in patient-health professional encounters. We conducted a scoping review using Levac and colleagues' approach and reported the findings using the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. We searched four databases (CINAHL, PsychINFO, PubMed and SocINDEX) for empirical studies that involved shame in patient-health professional encounters contextualised by trauma or stigma and were published in English. We categorised what is known regarding shame in empirical studies using inductive content analysis. We also collected stakeholders' perspectives on the review findings through an online survey. Our initial search yielded 3658 articles, of which 37 were included. We summarised the literature into four categories: (1) What health professionals say they do in patient-health professional encounters, (2) What health professionals think patients feel in patient-health professional encounters, (3) Patients' descriptions of their own shame during patient-health professional encounters and (4) Health professionals' descriptions of their own shame during patient-health professional encounters. Shame can arise in a variety of circumstances during patient-health professional encounters. More research is needed to identify what specific communication strategies used by health professionals during patient-health professional encounters contribute to or avoid patient shame.

Shifting Perspectives on the Challenges of Shared Decision Making in Mental Health Care

Although shared decision making (SDM) has become the most preferable way in doctor-patient communication, it is not fully implemented in mental health care likely due to the complex nature of psychiatric syndromes and treatments. In this review we provide a systematic overview of all perceived and reported barriers to SDM in the literature, acknowledging field-specific challenges, and offering perspectives to promote its wider use. We conducted a systematic search of the wider literature in different databases and included all publications mentioning specified barriers to SDM in psychiatric care. Relevant data and opinions were categorised into micro-, meso- and macro-level themes and put into clinical perspective. We derived 20 barriers to SDM from 100 studies and reports. Eight were on micro-level care delivery, seven involved meso-level issues, five concerned macro-level themes. The multitude of perceived and actual barriers to SDM underline the challenges its implementation poses in mental health care, some of which can be resolved while others are inherent to the nature of the care, with its long-term relationships, complex dynamics, and social consequences, all requiring a flexible approach. We present four perspectives to help change views on the potential of SDM in mental health care.

Bringing personal perspective elicitation to the heart of shared decision-making: A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Proponents of shared decision-making (SDM) advocate the elicitation of the patient's perspective. This scoping review explores if, and to what extent, the personal perspectives of patients are elicited during a clinical encounter, as part of a SDM process. We define personal perspective elicitation (PPE) as: the disclosure (either elicited by the clinician or spontaneously expressed by the patient) of information related to the patient's personal preferences, values and/or context.

METHODS

A search was conducted in five literature databases from inception dates up to July 2020, to identify empirical studies about SDM (with/without SDM instrument).

RESULTS

The search identified 4562 abstracts; 263 articles were read in full text, resulting in 99 included studies. Studies reported low levels of PPE. Integration of personal perspectives into the conversation or a future care plan was largely absent. The majority of the discussed content related to physical health, while social and psychological topics were mostly unaddressed.

CONCLUSIONS

PPE occurs on a very low level in efforts to achieve SDM according to evaluation studies.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

PPE is advocated but rarely achieved in SDM evaluation studies. Causes should be identified, followed by designing interventions to improve this aspect of SDM.

Making Conversation Analysis Accessible: A Conceptual Guide for Health Services Researchers

The quality of healthcare communication can impact both experiences and outcomes. We highlight aspects of communication that can be systematically examined using Conversation Analysis (CA) and provide guidance about how researchers can incorporate CA into healthcare studies. CA is a qualitative method for studying naturally occurring communication by analyzing recurrent, systematic practices of verbal and nonverbal behavior. CA involves examining audio- or video-recorded conversations and their transcriptions to identify practices speakers use to communicate and interpret behavior. We explain what distinguishes CA from other methods that study communication and highlight three accessible CA approaches that researchers can use in their research design, analysis, or implementation of communication interventions. Specifically, these approaches focus on how talk is produced (specific words, framing, and syntax), by whom, and when it occurs in the conversation. These approaches can be leveraged to generate hypotheses and to identify patterns of behavior that inform empirically driven communication interventions.

'The Explanation You Have Been Looking For': Neurobiology as Promise and Hermeneutic Closure

The biomedical aspiration of psychiatry has fundamentally reoriented clinical practice since the DSM-III in 1980 and reverberated in the public sphere. Over time, lay public understanding of the causes of mental suffering has increasingly endorsed biological conceptions. In this paper, I explore the sources from which a neurobiological model for mental suffering reaches ordinary people, and investigate its rhetorical appeal, personal appropriation, and consequences. Drawing on interviews and other data, I show that these sources-physicians, popular media, and advertising-share common ontological and moral assumptions. These assumptions, in turn, influence how people take up neurobiological explanation to account for their suffering, and how, paradoxically, they join it to their projects of self-determination. I conclude by considering how, from a phenomenological perspective, a neurobiological account fails to enhance self-knowledge or determination but leads to a hermeneutic dead end.

Critiquing the Critique: Resisting Commonplace Criticisms of Antidepressants in Online Platforms

Critiques of antidepressants in public spaces such as print media, blogs, social media, websites, and radio and television programs are now commonplace. Such critiques typically center on issues such as the side effects and risks of antidepressants, overblown claims of effectiveness, the fallacy of the chemical imbalance hypothesis, overprescribing, and the availability of equally or more effective nonmedication interventions for depression. In this article, we employ a discursive analysis to show how online commenters fashion a particular counter-argument to these critiques. Prominent in this counter-argument is that only "real" depression benefits from antidepressants, and that a "one-size-does-not-fit-all" understanding of these medications is needed. We argue that, while this nuanced counter-critique contains features that make it difficult to undermine, it simultaneously embeds many unanswered questions.

Attitudes and behaviour towards psychotropic drug prescribing in Swedish primary care: a questionnaire study

Background

The prescribing of psychotropic drugs, i.e. antidepressants, sedatives (anxiolytics, hypnotics), and antipsychotics is considerable and a large proportion is prescribed by general practitioners (GPs). There are concerns about dependency and medicalisation, and treatment decisions in psychiatry may appear arbitrary. Increased knowledge of GPs’ opinions on the prescribing of psychotropics may lead to more rational use of these drugs. We aimed to quantify GPs’ attitudes, beliefs and behaviour towards various aspects of psychotropic drug prescribing.

Methods

A questionnaire was distributed to physicians in all 199 GP practices in Region Västra Götaland, Sweden. The questions concerned determinants of psychotropic drug prescribing that had been identified in a previous, qualitative study.

Results

Questionnaires from 516 physicians (64% of whom were specialists in family medicine, 21% interns in family medicine, 15% others) at 152 GP practices (59% of which were state owned, 72% in an urban area, with a median of 7808 registered patients) were returned (estimated response rate: 48%). A majority – 62% – of GPs found it easier to start prescribing psychotropic drugs than to stop (95% confidence interval, 57%, 66%) vs. 8% (6%, 10%). Most GPs considered psychotherapy more suitable than psychotropic drugs in cases of mild psychiatric disease: 81% (77%, 84%) vs. 4% (3%, 6%). The problems treated with psychotropic drugs were considered to be mostly socioeconomic, or mostly medical, by similar proportions of physicians: 38% (34%, 42%) vs. 40% (36%, 45%). GPs were on average satisfied with their levels of antidepressant and sedative prescribing in relation to medical needs. More GPs regarded their prescribing of antipsychotics as being too low rather than too high: 33% (28%, 39%) vs. 7% (4%, 10%).

Conclusions

This study illustrates the complexities of psychiatric drug treatment in primary care and identifies potential drivers of increased prescribing of psychotropics. The manifold factors, medical and non-medical, that affect prescribing decisions may explain a sense of arbitrariness surrounding psychotropic drug treatment. This notwithstanding, GPs seem mostly content with their prescribing.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-018-0885-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Women's decision making about antidepressant use during pregnancy: A narrative review

BACKGROUND

Depression is common, particularly among women of childbearing age, and can have far-reaching negative consequences if untreated. Efficacious treatments are available, but little is known about how women make depression treatment decisions during pregnancy. The purpose of this narrative review is to interpretively synthesize literature on women's decision making (DM) regarding antidepressant use during pregnancy.

METHODS

The databases PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched between May 2015 and August 2017 for peer-reviewed, English-language papers using terms such as "depression," "pregnancy," and "DM." The literature matrix abstraction method was used to systematically abstract data from full articles that met criteria for inclusion.

RESULTS

Of the articles abstracted (N = 10), half did not cite a DM theory on which the work was based. Key aspects of DM for this population were need for information and decision support, desire for active participation in DM, reflection on beliefs and values, evaluation of treatment option sequelae, and societal expectations. Treatment DM for depression during pregnancy is particularly impacted by the stigma associated with depression and societal expectations of pregnant women related to medication use during pregnancy. These findings, however, were based on studies of predominantly Caucasian and well-educated women.

CONCLUSIONS

Women require a nonjudgmental environment, in which shared DM feels safe, to foster positive DM experiences and outcomes. Future research is needed to define how to best support women to make depression treatment decisions in pregnancy, with particular attention to DM in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy.

Formulations in Psychotherapy: Admission Interviews and the Conversational Construction of Diagnosis

In this article, we contribute to understanding the interactional aspects of making clinical diagnosis in mental health care. We observe that therapists, during the "problem presentation" sequence in clinical encounters, often use a specific form of diagnostic formulations to elicit more diagnostically relevant information. By doing so, they often substitute one type of verb with another, following a diagnostic hypothesis. Specifically, in interviews that arrive at a diagnosis of neurosis, therapists formulate with behavioral verbal processes; in interviews that arrive at a diagnosis of psychosis, they do so with material ones. Such formulations often prove useful to define clinical diagnoses. They can, however, also be dangerous in that they may favor the therapist's agenda over the patient's. Our analysis helps therapists not only better understand the diagnostic process but also reflect upon their own use of diagnostic formulations and become aware of the clinical effects of their interactional performance.

Effectiveness of a decision aid for patients with depression: A randomized controlled trial

Background

Shared decision making is an important component of patient‐centred care and decision aids are tools designed to support patients' decision making and help patients with depression to make informed choices.

Objective

The study aim was to assess the effectiveness of a web‐based decision aid for patients with unipolar depression.

Design

Randomized controlled trial.

Setting and participants

Adults diagnosed with a major depressive disorder and recruited in primary care centres were included and randomized to the decision aid (n=68) or usual care (n=79).

Intervention

Patients in the decision aid group reviewed the decision aid accompanied by a researcher.

Outcome measures

Knowledge about treatment options, decisional conflict, treatment intention and preference for participation in decision making. We also developed a pilot measure of concordance between patients' goals and concerns about treatment options and their treatment intention.

Results

Intervention significantly improved knowledge (P<.001) and decisional conflict (P<.001), and no differences were observed in treatment intention, preferences for participation, or concordance. One of the scales developed to measure goals and concerns showed validity issues.

Conclusion

The decision aid “Decision making in depression” is effective improving knowledge of treatment options and reducing decisional conflict of patients with unipolar depression. More research is needed to establish a valid and reliable measure of concordance between patients' goals and concerns regarding pharmacological and psychological treatment, and the choice made.

Starting antidepressant use: a qualitative synthesis of UK and Australian data

OBJECTIVE

To explore people's experiences of starting antidepressant treatment.

DESIGN

Qualitative interpretive approach combining thematic analysis with constant comparison. Relevant coding reports from the original studies (generated using NVivo) relating to initial experiences of antidepressants were explored in further detail, focusing on the ways in which participants discussed their experiences of taking or being prescribed an antidepressant for the first time.

PARTICIPANTS

108 men and women aged 22-84 who had taken antidepressants for depression.

SETTING

Respondents recruited throughout the UK during 2003-2004 and 2008 and 2012-2013 and in Australia during 2010-2011.

RESULTS

People expressed a wide range of feelings about initiating antidepressant use. People's attitudes towards starting antidepressant use were shaped by stereotypes and stigmas related to perceived drug dependency and potentially extreme side effects. Anxieties were expressed about starting use, and about how long the antidepressant might begin to take effect, how much it might help or hinder them, and about what to expect in the initial weeks. People worried about the possibility of experiencing adverse effects and implications for their senses of self. Where people felt they had not been given sufficient time during their consultation information or support to take the medicines, the uncertainty could be particularly unsettling and impact on their ongoing views on and use of antidepressants as a viable treatment option.

CONCLUSIONS

Our paper is the first to explore in-depth patient existential concerns about start of antidepressant use using multicountry data. People need additional support when they make decisions about starting antidepressants. Health professionals can use our findings to better understand and explore with patients' their concerns before their patients start antidepressants. These insights are key to supporting patients, many of whom feel intimidated by the prospect of taking antidepressants, especially during the uncertain first few weeks of treatment.