ArticleJournal of clinical psychology in medical settings2020
Collaboration Between GPs and Psychologists: Dissatisfaction from the Psychologists' Perspective-A Cross-Sectional Study.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Returning-to-work after mental health-associated sick leave: a qualitative interview study exploring the experiences of general practitioners in Germany.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- Depression in primary care and the role of evidence-based guidelines: cross-sectional data from primary care physicians in Germany.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- An ethnographic discourse approach to explore GP-counsellor communication in primary health care settings in Hong Kong.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
31552521What 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.