ArticleBMC psychiatry2023
"I would not want the mechanic to direct me to an engine repair manual": a qualitative analysis of provider perspectives on low-intensity treatments for patients on waiting lists.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLow-intensity treatments (LITs), such as bibliotherapy or online self-help, have the potential to reach more individuals than traditional face-to-face care by circumventing many of the common barriers to mental health treatment. Despite substantial research evidence supporting their usability and efficacy across several clinical presentations, prior work suggests that mental health providers rarely recommend LITs for patients waiting for treatment.
methodsThe present study analyzed provider open responses to a prompt asking about perceived barriers, thoughts, and comments related to additional treatment resources for patients on treatment waiting lists. We surveyed 141 practicing mental health providers, 65 of whom responded to an open text box with additional thoughts on using LITs for patients on treatment waiting lists. Responses were qualitatively coded using a thematic coding process.
resultsQualitative outcomes yielded 11 codes: patient appropriateness, research evidence, feasibility, patient barriers, liability, patient personal contact, additional resources, positive attitudes, trust in programs, systemic problems, and downplaying distress.
conclusionsResults suggest providers are predominantly concerned about the potential of suggesting a LIT that would be ultimately inappropriate for their patient due to a lack of assessment of the patient's needs. Furthermore, providers noted ambiguity around the legal and ethical liability of recommending a LIT to someone who may not yet be a patient. Guidelines and standards for recommending LITs to patients on treatment waiting lists may help address ambiguity regarding their use in routine care.
Indexed as
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.