Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Quality of Life Research
Published in: Quality of Life Research 11/2021

01-11-2021 | Affective Disorder | Special Section: Feedback Tools

GPs’ views on the use of depression screening and GP-targeted feedback: a qualitative study

Authors: Lea-Elena Braunschneider, Marco Lehmann, Julia Luise Magaard, Tharanya Seeralan, Gabriella Marx, Marion Eisele, Martin Scherer, Bernd Löwe, Sebastian Kohlmann

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 11/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The first aim of this qualitative study was to identify general practitioners’ (GPs’) views on depression screening combined with GP-targeted feedback in primary care. The second aim was to determine the needs and preferences of GPs with respect to GP-targeted feedback to enhance the efficacy of depression screening.

Methods

A semistructured qualitative interview was conducted with officially registered GPs in Hamburg (Germany). Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. An inductive approach was used to code the transcripts.

Results

Nine GPs (27 to 70 years; 5 male) from Hamburg, Germany, participated. Regarding depression screening combined with GP-targeted feedback, five thematic groups were identified: application of screening; screening and patient–physician relationships; GPs’ attitudes towards screening; benefits and concerns related to screening; and GPs’ needs and preferences regarding feedback. While the negative aspects of screening can be described in rather general terms (e.g., screening determines the mental health competence, screening threatens the doctor–patient relationship, revealing questions harm the patients), its advantages were very specific (e.g., promoting the identification of undetected cases, relief of the daily workload, wider communication channel to reach more patients). Standardized GP-targeted feedback of the screening results was perceived as helpful and purposeful. GPs preferred feedback materials that eased their clinical workload (e.g., short text with visuals, pictures, or images).

Conclusion

Addressing GPs’ needs is essential when implementing depression screening tools in clinical practice. To overcome prejudices and enhance the efficacy of screening, further education for GPs on the purpose and application on depression screening may be needed. Standardized GP-targeted feedback in combination with depression screening could be the missing link to improve the detection of depression in primary care.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Jacobi, F., et al. (2014). Twelve-month prevalence, comorbidity and correlates of mental disorders in Germany: The Mental Health Module of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults (DEGS1-MH). International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 23(3), 304–319.CrossRef
2.
Mitchell, A. J., et al. (2016). Case finding and screening clinical utility of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9 and PHQ-2) for depression in primary care: A diagnostic meta-analysis of 40 studies. BJPsych Open, 2(2), 127–138.CrossRef
3.
Mitchell, A. J., Vaze, A., & Rao, S. (2009). Clinical diagnosis of depression in primary care: A meta-analysis. Lancet, 374(9690), 609–619.CrossRef
4.
Pence, B. W., O’Donnell, J. K., & Gaynes, B. N. (2012). The depression treatment cascade in primary care: A public health perspective. Current Psychiatry Reports, 14(4), 328–335.CrossRef
5.
Siu, A. L., et al. (2016). Screening for Depression in Adults: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA, 315(4), 380–387.CrossRef
6.
7.
Bundesausschuss, G. (2019). Beschluss des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über eine Nicht-Änderung der Gesundheitsuntersuchungs-Richtlinie: Screening auf Depression. Berlin: Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss.
8.
Wittchen, H.-U., et al. (2000). Erscheinungsformen, Häufigkeit und Versorgung von Depressionen. Ergebnisse des bundesweiten Gesundheitssurveys. Psychische Störungen, 118, 4–10.
9.
Davidsen, A. S., & Fosgerau, C. F. (2014). What is depression? Psychiatrists’ and GPs’ experiences of diagnosis and the diagnostic process. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 9, 24866.CrossRef
10.
Pettersson, A., Björkelund, C., & Petersson, E.-L. (2014). To score or not to score: A qualitative study on GPs views on the use of instruments for depression. Family Practice, 31(2), 215–221.CrossRef
11.
Tavabie, J. A., & Tavabie, O. D. (2009). Improving care in depression: Qualitative study investigating the effects of using a mental health questionnaire. Quality in Primary Care, 17(4), 251–261.PubMed
12.
Löwe, B., et al. (2016). Depression screening with patient-targeted feedback in cardiology: DEPSCREEN-INFO randomised clinical trial. British Journal of Psychiatry, 315, 1–8.
13.
Kravitz, R. L., et al. (2013). Patient engagement programs for recognition and initial treatment of depression in primary care: A randomized trial. JAMA, 310(17), 1818–1828.CrossRef
14.
15.
Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349–357.CrossRef
16.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.CrossRef
17.
Seeralan, T. et al. (2020). Patient involvement in developing a patient-targeted feedback intervention after depression screening in primary care within the randomized controlled trail GET.FEEDBACK.GP. Health Expectations. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​hex.​13039.
18.
Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2001). The PHQ-9. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16(9), 606–613.CrossRef
19.
20.
DGPPN et al. (2015). S3-Leitlinie/Nationale Versorgungs Leitlinie Unipolare Depression – Langfassung. Auflage, Version 1.
21.
Heddaeus, D., et al. (2019). Clinical trial of a stepped and collaborative care model for mental illnesses and comorbidities in the Hamburg Network for Health Services Research. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz, 62(2), 205–213.CrossRef
22.
Harter, M., et al. (2012). Rationale and content of psychenet: The Hamburg Network for Mental Health. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 262(Suppl 2), S57-63.CrossRef
23.
Dowrick, C., et al. (2009). Patients’ and doctors’ views on depression severity questionnaires incentivised in UK quality and outcomes framework: Qualitative study. British Medical Journal, 338, b663.CrossRef
24.
Schumann, I., et al. (2011). Physicians’ attitudes, diagnostic process and barriers regarding depression diagnosis in primary care: A systematic review of qualitative studies. Family Practice, 29(3), 255–263.CrossRef
25.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (p. 532). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
Wald, N. J. (2001). The definition of screening. Journal of Medical Screening, 8(1), 1.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
GPs’ views on the use of depression screening and GP-targeted feedback: a qualitative study
Authors
Lea-Elena Braunschneider
Marco Lehmann
Julia Luise Magaard
Tharanya Seeralan
Gabriella Marx
Marion Eisele
Martin Scherer
Bernd Löwe
Sebastian Kohlmann
Publication date
01-11-2021
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Quality of Life Research / Issue 11/2021
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02703-2

Other articles of this Issue 11/2021

Quality of Life Research 11/2021 Go to the issue

Special Section: Feedback Tools

Initial quantitative development of the Norse Feedback system: a novel clinical feedback system for routine mental healthcare

Special Section: Feedback Tools

Smartphone App for monitoring Asthma in children and adolescents

Special Section: Feedback Tools

First steps in PROMs and PREMs collection in Wales as part of the prudent and value-based healthcare agenda

Special Section: Feedback Tools

Using an implementation science approach to implement and evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) initiatives in routine care settings

Special Section: Feedback Tools

Translating clinical and patient-reported data to tailored shared decision reports with predictive analytics for knee and hip arthritis

Special Section: Feedback Tools

Patient experiences of an electronic PRO tailored feedback system for symptom management following upper gastrointestinal cancer surgery