Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31552521›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical psychology in medical settings2020

Collaboration Between GPs and Psychologists: Dissatisfaction from the Psychologists' Perspective-A Cross-Sectional Study.

Yohann Vergès, Damien Driot, Pierre Mesthé, Marie-Eve Rougé Bugat, Julie Dupouy, Jean-Christophe Poutrain

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Yohann VergèsGeneral Practice Department, Toulouse III University, 133 Route de Narbonne, 31062, Toulouse, France. yohann.verges@dvy.fr.ORCID 0000-0002-4317-4401
Damien DriotGeneral Practice Department, Toulouse III University, 133 Route de Narbonne, 31062, Toulouse, France.ORCID 0000-0002-2969-8348
Pierre MesthéGeneral Practice Department, Toulouse III University, 133 Route de Narbonne, 31062, Toulouse, France.
Marie-Eve Rougé BugatGeneral Practice Department, Toulouse III University, 133 Route de Narbonne, 31062, Toulouse, France.ORCID 0000-0002-3562-5815
Julie DupouyGeneral Practice Department, Toulouse III University, 133 Route de Narbonne, 31062, Toulouse, France.ORCID 0000-0001-7801-286X
Jean-Christophe PoutrainGeneral Practice Department, Toulouse III University, 133 Route de Narbonne, 31062, Toulouse, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Collaborative mental health practices in primary care significantly enhances patients' health. Collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and psychologists could improve non-drug mental care. Little is known of psychologists' perception of GPs and their collaboration. This study aimed to assess the quality of collaboration between GPs and psychologists from the psychologists' perspective and to identify factors associated with satisfactory collaboration. A questionnaire was sent by post to all private psychologists in a region of France in February, 2017. We carried out descriptive and multivariate analysis of factors associated with satisfactory collaboration. The response rate was 38% (n = 434 out of 1128). Collaboration between GPs and psychologists was considered unsatisfactory by 64% (n = 278) of psychologists. The main barriers reported were lack of time, lack of understanding and poor interactions/communication. Sixty-nine percent of psychologists felt that GPs knew little about their work. Psychologists had professional exchanges with an average of three local GPs and received referral information for 12% of new patients. Out of 10 new patients, 2 were referred by a GP. In a multivariate analysis, satisfactory collaboration was significantly associated with the number of GPs psychologists exchanged with (OR 1.29), receipt of referral information (OR 2.18) and a positive assessment of GPs' understanding of psychologists' activity (OR 3.35). Psychologists considered the collaboration between GPs and psychologists as substandard, as well as GPs' knowledge of psychologists' activity. More interactions and better understanding would improve their collaboration.

Indexed as

General PractitionersMental HealthPsychologyReferral and ConsultationAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelCross-Sectional StudiesEmotionsFemaleFranceHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareSurveys and QuestionnairesCollaborative careGeneral practitionersInterprofessionalityMental healthPrimary health carePsychologists

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.