PSYCHLOPS in Polish primary care: how do clients conceptualise their problems on a patient-generated outcome measure?

Clinical psychology Depression General practice Mental health PROM Poland Primary care Psychiatry Psychology

Journal

Heliyon
ISSN: 2405-8440
Titre abrégé: Heliyon
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101672560

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Aug 2019
Historique:
received: 29 01 2019
revised: 21 06 2019
accepted: 30 07 2019
entrez: 28 8 2019
pubmed: 28 8 2019
medline: 28 8 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

PSYCHLOPS, a patient-generated mental health outcome questionnaire, invites clients to describe the problem that troubles them most. PSYCHLOPS was utilised in Polish primary care in the context of a brief CBT-based intervention for mild to moderate mental health problems. To explore how patients conceptualise their problems and the consequences of these problems with the aid of PSYCHLOPS. 243 patients were recruited from a primary care setting; 241 completed PSYCHLOPS. Free-text data were obtained from the Problem and Function domains of PSYCHLOPS, blind translated into English and independently analysed using a pre-existing thematic framework. A total of 780 free-text responses were analysed. The most commonly reported responses to the pre-therapy Problem domain category were "somatic" (denoting responses relating to physical health); the most common responses to the Function domain category were "competence/performance" (denoting responses relating to the respondents' perceived ability to achieve, cope, function). Compared with pre-therapy Problem 1 domain categories, during-therapy responses revealed a higher proportion of the "interpersonal" category (denoting responses relating to social relationships) and a lower proportion of the "somatic" category. Despite the brevity of clients' responses, PSYCHLOPS allowed an insight into patients' most troubling problems and their consequences. Possible reasons underlying the transition from a somatic to an interpersonal problem reporting during the course of talking therapy are discussed.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
PSYCHLOPS, a patient-generated mental health outcome questionnaire, invites clients to describe the problem that troubles them most. PSYCHLOPS was utilised in Polish primary care in the context of a brief CBT-based intervention for mild to moderate mental health problems.
AIM OBJECTIVE
To explore how patients conceptualise their problems and the consequences of these problems with the aid of PSYCHLOPS.
METHOD METHODS
243 patients were recruited from a primary care setting; 241 completed PSYCHLOPS. Free-text data were obtained from the Problem and Function domains of PSYCHLOPS, blind translated into English and independently analysed using a pre-existing thematic framework. A total of 780 free-text responses were analysed.
RESULTS RESULTS
The most commonly reported responses to the pre-therapy Problem domain category were "somatic" (denoting responses relating to physical health); the most common responses to the Function domain category were "competence/performance" (denoting responses relating to the respondents' perceived ability to achieve, cope, function). Compared with pre-therapy Problem 1 domain categories, during-therapy responses revealed a higher proportion of the "interpersonal" category (denoting responses relating to social relationships) and a lower proportion of the "somatic" category.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Despite the brevity of clients' responses, PSYCHLOPS allowed an insight into patients' most troubling problems and their consequences. Possible reasons underlying the transition from a somatic to an interpersonal problem reporting during the course of talking therapy are discussed.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31453395
doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02209
pii: S2405-8440(19)35869-4
pii: e02209
pmc: PMC6700419
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

e02209

Références

PLoS One. 2011;6(12):e27378
pubmed: 22194783
Community Ment Health J. 1968 Dec;4(6):443-53
pubmed: 24185570
Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2019 Feb;24(1):54-65
pubmed: 32677230
JAMA. 2016 Dec 27;316(24):2609-2617
pubmed: 27837602
Qual Health Res. 2005 Nov;15(9):1277-88
pubmed: 16204405
Br J Psychiatry. 2006 Apr;188:359-65
pubmed: 16582063
Health Expect. 2018 Jun;21(3):615-619
pubmed: 29165852
Ment Health Fam Med. 2010 Dec;7(4):223-31
pubmed: 22477946
Arch Fam Med. 1994 Sep;3(9):774-9
pubmed: 7987511
BMJ. 2015 Feb 10;350:g7818
pubmed: 25670183
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jul 13;7:CD011119
pubmed: 27409972

Auteurs

Maria Kordowicz (M)

School of Population Health & Environmental Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.

Slawomir Czachowski (S)

Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland.

Peter Schofield (P)

School of Population Health & Environmental Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.

Mark Ashworth (M)

School of Population Health & Environmental Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.

Classifications MeSH