Fiona Walter

The UK National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) Clinical Guidelines recommend routine prescription of antidepressants for moderate to severe depression. While many patients accept a prescription, one in three do not complete treatment. We carried out a meta-ethnography of published qualitative papers since 1990 whose focus is patients' experience of antidepressant use for depression, in order to understand barriers and facilitators to concordance and inform a larger qualitative study investigating antidepressant use over time. A systematic search of five databases was carried out, supported by hand searches of key journals, writing to first authors and examining reference lists. After piloting three critical appraisal tools, a modified version of the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) checklist was used to appraise potentially relevant and qualitative papers. We carried out a synthesis using techniques of meta-ethnography involving translation and re-interpretation. Sixteen papers were included in the meta-ethnography. The papers fall into two related groups: (1) Papers whose focus is the decision-making relationship and the ways patients manage their use of antidepressants, and (2) Papers whose focus is antidepressants' effect on self-concept, ideas of stigma and its management. We found that patients' experience of antidepressants is characterised by the decision-making process and the meaning-making process, conceptualised here as the 'medication career' and 'moral career'. Our synthesis indicates ways in which general practitioners (GPs) can facilitate concordant relationships with patients regarding antidepressant use. First, GPs can enhance the potential for shared decision-making by reviewing patients' changing preferences for involvement in decision-making regularly throughout the patient's 'medication career'. Second, if GPs familiarise themselves with the competing demands that patients may experience at each decision-making juncture, they will be better placed to explore their…

The UK National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) Clinical Guidelines recommend routine prescription of antidepressants for moderate to severe depression. While many patients accept a prescription, one in three do not complete treatment. We carried out a meta-ethnography of published qualitative papers since 1990 whose focus is patients' experience of antidepressant use for depression, in order to understand barriers and facilitators to concordance and inform a larger qualitative study investigating antidepressant use over time. A systematic search of five databases was carried out, supported by hand searches of key journals, writing to first authors and examining reference lists. After piloting three critical appraisal tools, a modified version of the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) checklist was used to appraise potentially relevant and qualitative papers. We carried out a synthesis using techniques of meta-ethnography involving translation and re-interpretation. Sixteen papers were included in the meta-ethnography. The papers fall into two related groups: (1) Papers whose focus is the decision-making relationship and the ways patients manage their use of antidepressants, and (2) Papers whose focus is antidepressants' effect on self-concept, ideas of stigma and its management. We found that patients' experience of antidepressants is characterised by the decision-making process and the meaning-making process, conceptualised here as the 'medication career' and 'moral career'. Our synthesis indicates ways in which general practitioners (GPs) can facilitate concordant relationships with patients regarding antidepressant use. First, GPs can enhance the potential for shared decision-making by reviewing patients' changing preferences for involvement in decision-making regularly throughout the patient's 'medication career'. Second, if GPs familiarise themselves with the competing demands that patients may experience at each decision-making juncture, they will be better placed to explore their…

Although the detection and experience of symptoms often stimulates an appropriate decision as to whether to visit to a healthcare professional (HCP), there are many occasions when it does not. Sometimes, people seek help for minor, transient conditions which would have resolved without the attention of a HCP, whereas at other times help is not sought for signs of life-threatening disease. Help-seeking behaviour concerns not only the decision of whether to seek help or not, but also the timing of that decision. The timing of consultations with HCPs has implications for our health, quality of life, treatment options and for the cost of healthcare services. This article discusses research and theory on help-seeking behaviour, with attention to the challenges of methods and models used in this area of research. One particular model, the ‘General Model of Total Patient Delay’, is outlined and critiqued to demonstrate the complex processes involved and highlight areas in need of further research and development.

Background: Identification of a genetic basis underlying certain types of cancer has led to an increase in demand for genetic counseling about individual risks of the disease. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to determine the quality and strength of evidence relating to psychological outcomes of genetic counseling for familial cancer. Methods: Six electronic databases were searched to identify controlled trials and prospective studies that examined the effect of genetic counseling on risk perception, knowledge, anxiety, cancer-specific worry, depression, and cancer surveillance. Twenty-one studies from 25 papers met inclusion criteria, including five controlled trials and 16 prospective studies. Analysis of each outcome was stratified by short-term (≤1 month) and long-term (≥3 months) follow-up. Trial evidence was assessed with standardized differences of the means at follow-up between intervention and comparison groups, and these data were pooled by use of random-effects meta-analysis. Results: Meta-analysis of controlled trials showed that genetic counseling improved knowledge of cancer genetics (pooled short-term difference=0.70 U, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.15 to 1.26 U) but did not alter the level of perceived risk (pooled short-term difference=−0.10 U, 95% CI=−0.23–0.04 U). Prospective studies reported improvements in the accuracy of perceived risk. No effect was observed in controlled trials on general anxiety (pooled long-term effect=0.05 U, 95% CI=−0.21–0.31 U) or cancer-specific worry (pooled long-term difference=−0.14 U, 95% CI=−0.35–0.06 U), although several prospective studies demonstrated short-term reductions in these outcomes. Few studies examined cancer surveillance behaviors, and no studies attempted to measure informed choice.Conclusions: Genetic counseling for familial cancer is associated with improvement in knowledge but does not have an adverse effect on affective outcomes. We urge further investigation of these findings through well-designed, well-reported, randomized controlled trials with suitable comparison groups and additional outcome measures [J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96:122–33].