Patients' perspectives on the use of the Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale self-assessment version in primary care

Carl Wikberg, Agneta Pettersson, Jeanette Westman, Cecilia Björkelund, Eva-Lisa Petersson, Carl Wikberg, Agneta Pettersson, Jeanette Westman, Cecilia Björkelund, Eva-Lisa Petersson

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the current study was to better understand how patients with depression perceive the use of MADRS-S in primary care consultations with GPs.

Design: Qualitative study. Focus group discussion and analysis through Systematic Text Condensation.

Setting: Primary Health Care, Region Västra Götaland, Sweden.

Subjects: Nine patients with mild/moderate depression who participated in a RCT evaluating the effects of regular use of the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Self-assessment scale (MADRS-S) during the GP consultations.

Main outcome measure: Patients' experiences and perceptions of the use of MADRS-S in primary care.

Results: Three categories emerged from the analysis: (I) confirmation; MADRS-S shows that I have depression and how serious it is, (II) centeredness; the most important thing is for the GP to listen to and take me seriously and (III) clarification; MADRS-S helps me understand why I need treatment for depression.

Conclusion: Use of MADRS-S was perceived as a confirmation for the patients that they had depression and how serious it was. MADRS-S showed the patients something black on white that describes and confirms the diagnosis. The informants emphasized the importance of patient-centeredness; of being listened to and to be taken seriously during the consultation. Use of self-assessment scales such as MADRS-S could find its place, but needs to adjust to the multifaceted environment that primary care provides. Key Points Patients with depression in primary care perceive that the use of a self-assessment scale in the consultation purposefully can contribute in several ways. The scale contributes to Confirmation: MADRS-S shows that I have depression and how serious it is. Centeredness: The most important thing is for the GP to listen to and take me seriously. Clarification: MADRS-S helps me understand why I need treatment for depression.

Keywords: Depression; Sweden; communication; focus group; general practice; primary care; self-assessment scale.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Flowchart of participants in the focus group study.

References

    1. Swedish Council for Health Technology Assessment. Diagnosis and follow up of affective disorders - a systematic review. Report 212/2012. ISBN 978-91-85413-52-2. ISSN 1400–1403 [in Swedish].
    1. Montgomery SA, Asberg M.. A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiatry. 1979;134:382–389.
    1. Fantino B, Moore N.. The self-reported Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale is a useful evaluative tool in major depressive disorder. BMC Psychiatry. 2009;9:26.
    1. Maguire P, Pitceathly C.. Key communication skills and how to acquire them. BMJ. 2002;325:697–700.
    1. Ottosson J, editor. The patient-doctor relation – the art of medicine on scientific basis. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur, in collaboration with Swedish Council for Health Technology Assessment (SBU); 1999.
    1. Pettersson A, Bjorkelund C, Petersson EL.. To score or not to score: a qualitative study on GPs views on the use of instruments for depression. Family Practice. 2014;31:215–221.
    1. Kreuger R, Casey M.. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2009.
    1. Bjorkelund C. Structured use of a self rating instrument in the primary care consultation with patients with mild to moderate depression. . 2011. Identifier: NCT01402206.
    1. Svanborg P, Asberg M.. A new self-rating scale for depression anxiety states based on the Comprehensive Psychopathological Rating Scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1994;89:82–81.
    1. Bondolfi G, Jermann F, Rouget BW, et al. . Self- and clinician-rated Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale: evaluation in clinical practice. J Affect Disord. 2010;121:268–272.
    1. Wikberg C, Nejati S, Larsson M, et al. . Comparison Between the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale-Self (MADRS-S) and the Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II) in Primary Care. Prim Care Companion CNS Disord. 2015;17. doi: 10.4088/PCC.14m01758.
    1. Malterud K. Systematic text condensation: a strategy for qualitative analysis. Scand J Public Health. 2012;40:795–805.
    1. Giorgi A, Sketch of a psychological phenomenological method Phenomenology and psychological research: essays. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press; 1985: 8–22.
    1. Carlsen B, Glenton C.. What about N? A methodological study of sample-size reporting in focus group studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:26.
    1. Mattisson C, Bogren M, Nettelbladt P, et al. . First incidence depression in the Lundby Study: a comparison of the two time periods 1947–1972 and 1972–1997. J Affect Disord. 2005;87:151–160.
    1. Maier W, Gänsicke M, Gater R, et al. . Gender differences in the prevalence of depression: a survey in primary care. J Affect Disord. 1999;53:241–252.
    1. Jin J, Sklar GE, Min Sen Oh V, et al. . Factors affecting therapeutic compliance: a review from the patient’s perspective. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2008;4:269–286.
    1. Groot PC. Patients can diagnose too: how continuous self-assessment aids diagnosis of, and recovery from, depression. J Ment Health. 2010;19:352–362.
    1. Bilderbeck AC, Saunders KE, Price J, et al. . Psychiatric assessment of mood instability: qualitative study of patient experience. Br J Psychiatry. 2014;204:234–239.
    1. Paddison CA, Abel GA, Roland MO, et al. . Drivers of overall satisfaction with primary care: evidence from the English General Practice Patient Survey. Health Expect. 2013;18:1081–1092.
    1. Kadam UT, Croft P, McLeod J, et al. . A qualitative study of patients' views on anxiety and depression. Br J Gen Pract. 2001;51:375–380.
    1. Katon WJ, Lin EHB, Von Korff M, et al. . Collaborative care for patients with depression and chronic illnesses. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:2611–2620.
    1. Oxman TE, Dietrich AJ, Williams JW Jr, et al. . A three-component model for reengineering systems for the treatment of depression in primary care. Psychosomatics. 2002;43:441–450.
    1. Dowrick C, Leydon GM, McBride A, et al. . Patients' and doctors' views on depression severity questionnaires incentivised in UK quality and outcomes framework: qualitative study. BMJ. 2009;338:b663.
    1. Hjortdahl P, Laerum E.. Continuity of care in general practice: effect on patient satisfaction. BMJ. 1992;304:1287–1290.
    1. Oxman AD. Improving the health of patients and populations requires humility, uncertainty, and collaboration. JAMA. 2012;308:1691–1692.
    1. Aakhus E, Oxman AD, Flottorp SA.. Determinants of adherence to recommendations for depressed elderly patients in primary care: a multi-methods study. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2014;32:170–179.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner