نبذة مختصرة : Background: General practice is pivotal in delivering mental health care within communities, yet the attitudes and professional factors influencing this provision remain underexplored. This study seeks to understand the perspective of general practice staff around the professional factors that influence the provision of primary mental health care.
Methods: A qualitative study was conducted with semi-structured interviews of 14 general practice staff involved in mental health care. Participants included receptionists (n = 3), nurses (n = 4), practice managers (n = 3), and general practitioners (n = 4), recruited via purposive sampling. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) guided the interviews, and thematic analysis was used to identify themes and subthemes.
Results: Three themes were identified. The first, 'Role identity, skills, and leadership in mental health care,' included subthemes of distinct role recognition with overlap, essential relational and practical skills, and leadership valued among experienced GPs. The second theme, 'Confidence and involvement in mental health care,' covered variability in confidence levels, differing perceptions of involvement, and attitudes towards further involvement. The third theme, 'Drivers for and outcomes of delivering mental health care,' revealed intrinsic motivations and acknowledged both benefits and serious consequences.
Conclusion: This study explored general practice staff beliefs about role identity, skills, leadership, confidence, involvement, motivations, and perceptions of benefits in mental health care provision. The findings offer valuable insights into the complexities of mental health care in general practice, with significant implications for practice management and healthcare policy development.
Competing Interests: Declarations Ethical approval Ethical approval for this study was granted from the Human Research Ethics Subcommittee in the College of Medicine and Public Health at Flinders University (HREC no. 6034). . Verbal informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to commencing interviews. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests Co-author Sam Manger (SM), a staff member at one of the clinics in this study, was also a participant. Literature supports the transformation of participants into “co-researchers”, particularly when using experience-based co-design processes. He is an author due to his contributions to facilitating the study and writing the article. To minimise potential bias: (1) a second GP at SM’s clinic was interviewed to detect divergent data, (2) SM did not collect data outside his own interview, and (3) he was not involved in coding or analysis of the data. SM reviewed the blinded results section, suggesting only minor changes to in-text wording. Including him as an author is ethical due to his significant contributions, despite potential conflict of interest. Co-author Paul Worley (PW) is a staff member at another participating practice but was not involved in data collection, coding, or analysis. All participant details were blinded before PW contributed to writing this manuscript.
(© 2024. The Author(s).)
Processing Request
No Comments.