ArticleInternational journal of mental health systems2014
Preparedness of Lithuanian general practitioners to provide mental healthcare services: a cross-sectional survey.
Article in International journal of mental health systems, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Romanian GPs Involvement in Caring for the Mental Health Problems of the Elderly Population: A Cross-Sectional Study.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Article
- The Necessity of Medical Humanities Education to General Practitioners: A Brief Review.Iranian journal of public health · 2020Review
- What Impedes General Practitioners' Identification of Mental Disorders at Outpatient Departments? A Qualitative Study in Shanghai, China.Annals of global health · 2019Article
- Insights into the system of care of the elderly with mental disorders from the perspective of informal caregivers in Lithuania.International journal of mental health systems · 2019Article
- Mental health in primary care: an evaluation using the Item Response Theory.Revista de saude publica · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA large unmet need for mental healthcare in Lithuania is partially attributable to a lack of primary care providers with skills in this area. The aim of this study was to assess general practitioners' (GPs) experience in mental healthcare and their perceptions about how to increase their involvement in the field.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, a 41-item questionnaire was distributed to a random sample of 797 Lithuanian GPs in order to investigate current practices in their provision of mental healthcare as well as their suggestions for the improvement of mental healthcare services in primary care.
resultsThe response rate was 52.2%. Three-quarters of the GPs agreed that they feel responsible for the management of mental health problems, but only 8.8% of them agreed that "My knowledge in mental healthcare is sufficient". Psychiatrists were identified as the mental healthcare team specialists with whom 32% of the respondents discuss the management of their patients with a mental disorder. Collaboration with psychologists and social workers was almost threefold lower (11.6% and 12.5%). Capacity-building of GPs was found to be among the most promising initiatives to improve mental health services in primary care. Other strategies mentioned were policy level and managerial measures as well as strengthening the teamwork approach in mental healthcare.
conclusionsThis study found a low self-reported competence of GPs in mental healthcare and low collaboration among GPs and other specialists in providing mental healthcare. For the situation to improve in the country, these findings point to a need for strategies to improve GPs' expertise and teamwork in mental healthcare.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.