Search

Background: Domestic violence is common in the community. Many of its victims present to primary care physicians (PCPs) but are not being recognized and managed. The barriers, with specific reference to a Chinese cultural context, were investigated earlier. This paper explored the factors which facilitated the process of recognizing and managing suspected cases of domestic violence by PCPs in Hong Kong. Methods: Four focus group interviews were conducted to explore in-depth the experiences of PCPs in recognition, management and referral of domestic violence cases from which facilitators were identified. The relevant themes were then investigated in a questionnaire survey with 504 PCPs working in public and private sectors. Results: The focus group participants emphasized mood symptoms as useful indicators for probable abuse and continuity of care was important to unmask issues of domestic violence. The top facilitators perceived by the respondents of the survey included: a trusting doctor-patient relationship (99.8%), good communication skills (99.0%), patients' unexplained bruises (96.3%), medical history (94.6%), and mood symptoms (94.4%). Further, the survey found that PCPs with longer years of practice, a medical degree obtained from Western countries, and postgraduate training in family counselling or psychological medicine perceived more facilitators in managing domestic violence. Conclusions: Without a local screening policy and training protocol to manage domestic violence, PCPs regarded their skills in mental healthcare and good relationships with patients as the key facilitators. While training in mental health care helps PCPs manage domestic violence, a specific protocol emphasizing medical-social collaboration is anticipated to facilitate them to take a more proactive and effective stance from screening to management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The stepped care model for psychological distress has been promoted in recent years, leading to the enhancing roles of primary care professionals and alternative sources of help. However, most of the research findings come from Western countries. This study investigates help-seeking behaviours of Chinese patients among different types of professional and alternative sources for psychological distress in Hong Kong. Methods: A questionnaire survey was conducted with 1626 adult primary care attenders from 13 private and 6 public clinics, 650 (40.0%) reported that they had ever experienced psychological distress. Their help-seeking behaviours, demographic background and current distress level (measured by GHQ-12) were analysed. Results: Among the respondents with experience of psychological distress, 48.2% had sought help from professional and/or alternative sources for their distress [10.2% from professionals only, 12.6% from alternative sources only, and 25.4% from both]. Those who had sought help from professionals only were more likely to be less educated and with lower income. In contrast, those using alternative sources only were more likely to be younger, better educated, and have higher income. Allowing multiple responses, psychiatrists (22.3%) was reported to be the most popular professional source, followed by primary care physicians (17.5%), clinical psychologists (12.8%) and social workers/counsellors (12.0%). Family members/friends (28.6%) was the top alternative source, followed by exercise/sports (21.8%), religious/spiritual support (16.9%) and self-help websites/books/pamphlets (8.9%). Conclusion: While psychiatrists remain the most popular professional source of help to the Chinese patients in Hong Kong, primary care professionals and alternative sources also play significant roles. Distressed patients who are younger, better educated and have higher income are more likely to use alternative sources only. The outcomes need further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]