Search

Help-seeking for depression and anxiety disorders from primary care physicians in Western countries is at three times the rate of China. Western help-seeking models for common mental disorders have limitations in the Chinese settings. This article argues that an adapted model based on Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Services Use could be an appropriate tool to better understand patients' help-seeking behaviors and improve outcomes. We applied a narrative review approach to integrate research findings from China into Andersen's model to generate a model that fits the Chinese context. We found 39 relevant articles in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Chinese journal databases from 1999 to 2022. Findings were mapped onto predisposing, enabling, and need factors of the model. This model emphasizes that predisposing factors including demographics, social norms, and health beliefs influence help-seeking preferences. Mental health service users in China tend to be older and female. Chinese generally have high concern about psychotropic medications, and social norms that consider psychological distress a personal weakness may discourage help-seeking. However, help-seeking can be enhanced by enabling factors in the health system, including training of primary care physicians, longer consultation time, and continuity of care. Need factors for treatment increase with the severity of distress symptoms, and doctor's skills and attitudes in recognizing psychosomatic symptoms. While predisposing factors are relatively hard to change, enabling factors in the health system and need factors for treatment can be targeted by enhancing the role of family doctors and training in mental health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most studies highlighted the association between psychological distress and socioeconomic status (SES). There were weaker explanations for distress found in the middle classes, especially in Asian countries. We conducted a questionnaire survey with 1626 adult Chinese primary-care attenders from 13 private and 6 public clinics in different districts of Hong Kong. Their demographic background and distress level measured by GHQ-12 were analysed. We found that respondents with younger age, better education, and lower income were more likely to be distressed. In a multiple logistic regression model, age and income, but not education, were significant predictors for distress. Highest rates of distress were found among the unemployed (45.5%) and the students (37.1%), followed by service workers and shop sales workers (33.0%), associate professionals (32.0%), and clerks (29.2%). Craftworkers (9.1%), plant and machine operators (11.5%), and retired people (12.8%) were least likely to be distressed, followed by professionals (21.0%). Apart from SES, the findings suggest that young age, academic and job stressors, and low self-esteem are significant factors for distress. These factors may be intensified in a Chinese context by peer comparison resulting in a state of relative deprivation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) has called for integration of mental health into primary care for a decade. In Western countries, around 15% to 25% of patients with common mental disorders including mood and anxiety disorders seek help from primary care physicians (PCPs). The rate is only about 5% in China. Aims: This article reviews the Chinese findings on the barriers to primary care for common mental disorders and how they compared with Western findings. Methods: A narrative literature review was conducted, focusing on literature published from mid-1990s in English or Chinese. Patient, PCP and health system factors were reviewed. Results: Although Chinese and Western findings show similar themes of barriers, the Chinese have stronger barriers in most aspects, including under-recognition of the need for treatment, stigma on mental illness, somatization, worries about taking psychiatric drugs, uncertainties in the role, competency and legitimacy of PCPs in mental health care and short consultation time. Conclusion: Current policies in China emphasize enhancement of mental health facilities and workforce in the community. Our review suggests that patients’ intention to seek help and PCPs’ competency in mental health care are other fundamental factors to be addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most of the previous studies on help seeking for psychological distress were derived from Western countries. This study investigated the barriers to help-seeking for psychological distress among Chinese primary care attenders in Hong Kong.Methods: Nine focus groups and 6 individual interviews were conducted among Chinese primary care attenders with/without known distress, patients' significant others and the general public. The identified barriers were investigated in a questionnaire survey with data from 1626 primary care attenders recruited from 13 private clinics and 6 public clinics.Results: Worries about side effects of drugs (79.9%, 95% CI:(77.9%, 81.8%)) and drug dependency (74.7%, 95% CI:(72.5%, 76.8%)) were rated as the top barriers in the survey. Qualitative interviews found both worries and actual experience of the side effects of drugs, which weakened patients' trust in the treatment. Factor analysis on all barrier items suggested three factors: 1) worries of treatment, 2) uncertainties on primary care physicians' capacity, 3) public's limited knowledge on distress and sources of help. Distress level, education level and age were associated with factor 1, whereas distress level and healthcare setting were associated with the other two factors. Qualitative interviews revealed that not having a regular primary care physician in the public setting discouraged disclosure of psychological problems.Limitations: The findings were based on self-reported data from the respondents. Hong Kong is influenced by a mixed Chinese and Western culture.Conclusions: Relevant public education in a Chinese context should target at reducing patients' worries of drug treatment and strengthening the image of primary care physicians as a feasible source of help. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A recent trend in health care system is to provide more choices to the patients. This study surveyed the general public's choices for primary care in Hong Kong which has the setting of free choices for private or public service and also direct access to specialists. We used a combined qualitative and quantitative approach. We held five focus group interviews with participants of different socio-economic categories. Information from the focus groups helped to design a questionnaire for random telephone interviews with members of the public aged 18 or above. There were 37 participants in the focus groups and 1647 respondents in the telephone survey. The most important factor for choosing a doctor was proximity to home or workplace, followed by quick relief from the illness. Once continuity of care had been established, distance was of less importance but comprehensive care was valued. Nearly 70% of the public had regular doctors. About 93% of the public would consult specialists directly when they thought they needed a specialist's opinion. Nearly 30% chose specialists for any medical care and 38% preferred specialists to also look after their primary care problems. Convenient accessibility was the most important factor for the initial choice of primary care doctors by the general public. The perceived clinical proficiency of the doctor determined future continuity of care. Patients liked to have direct access to specialists. Though some chose to see the specialists even for primary care problems, most people had regular doctors who were likely to have the attributes of family doctors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A study conducted as part of the development of the Eleventh International Classification of Mental Disorders for Primary Health Care (ICD-11 PHC) provided an opportunity to test the relationships among depressive, anxious and somatic symptoms in PHC. Method: Primary care physicians participating in the ICD-11 PHC field studies in five countries selected patients who presented with somatic symptoms not explained by known physical pathology by applying a 29-item screening on somatic complaints that were under study for bodily stress disorder. Patients were interviewed using the Clinical Interview Schedule-Revised and assessed using two five-item scales that measure depressive and anxious symptoms. Structural models of anxious-depressive symptoms and somatic complaints were tested using a bi-factor approach. Results: A total of 797 patients completed the study procedures. Two bi-factor models fit the data well: Model 1 had all symptoms loaded on a general factor, along with one of three specific depression, anxiety and somatic factors [ x 2 (627) = 741.016, p < 0.0011, RMSEA = 0.015, CFI = 0.911, TLI = 0.9]. Model 2 had a general factor and two specific anxious depression and somatic factors [ x 2 (627) = 663.065, p = 0.1543, RMSEA = 0.008, CFI = 0.954, TLI = 0.948]. Conclusions: These data along with those of previous studies suggest that depressive, anxious and somatic symptoms are largely different presentations of a common latent phenomenon. This study provides support for the ICD-11 PHC conceptualization of mood disturbance, especially anxious depression, as central among patients who present multiple somatic symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To examine the public's views towards their choice of first-contact care and its associated factors in urban China.Methods: A mixed-method study was adopted using individual interviews, focus group interviews and a cross-sectional survey. The study was conducted among the general public between September 2014 and September 2015 in Zhejiang province, China.Results: Six focus groups and 13 individual interviews were conducted. The questionnaire was completed by 1248 respondents with a response rate of 83%. Survey results showed that 70% of the respondents preferred hospital-based services for first-contact care, it is especially the case with paediatric patients (83.3%). The qualitative data revealed that a major cause was the public distrust in the competence of primary care practitioners with lower educational qualifications. In the decision-making process, compared to cost factors like medical expenses and waiting times, participants attached greater emphasis on organizational characteristics. Respondents who rated sophisticated medical equipment, reputation of the facility, average education of doctors as important were significantly more inclined to choose hospital services. Respective adjusted odds ratios (AOR) were 2.14 (P < 0.001), 1.83 (P < 0.001) and 1.40 (P = 0.043) for their own conditions and 2.19 (P = 0.004), 1.94 (P = 0.002) and 1.86 (P = 0.003) for their children's conditions. Availability of medications and perceived severity of illness were also significantly associated with their choice of hospital services for their children.Conclusion: The public's preference for hospital-based services for first-contact care places a huge obstacle to promoting community-based primary care. Addressing the public's concerns about the primary care practitioners' competence is worth more efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recent studies have reported a lack of collaboration and consensus between primary care physicians (PCPs) and psychiatrists.Objective: To compare the views of PCPs and psychiatrists on managing common mental health problems in primary care.Methods: Four focus group interviews were conducted to explore the in-depth opinions of PCPs and psychiatrists in Hong Kong. The acceptance towards the proposed collaborative strategies from the focus groups were investigated in a questionnaire survey with data from 516 PCPs and 83 psychiatrists working in public and private sectors.Results: In the focus groups, the PCPs explained that several follow-up sessions to build up trust and enable the patients to accept their mental health problems were often needed before making referrals. Although some PCPs felt capable of managing common mental health problems, they had limited choices of psychiatric drugs to prescribe. Some public PCPs experienced the benefits of collaborative care, but most private PCPs perceived limited support from psychiatrists. The survey showed that around 90% of PCPs and public psychiatrists supported setting up an agreed protocol of care, management of common mental health problems by PCPs, and discharging stabilized patients to primary care. However, only around 54-67% of private psychiatrists supported different components of these strategies. Besides, less than half of the psychiatrists agreed with setting up a support hotline for the PCPs to consult them.Conclusions: The majority of PCPs and psychiatrists support management of common mental health problems in primary care, but there is significantly less support from the private psychiatrists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]