Search

This paper reports on a study of the ways in which 54 older people in South Wales (UK) talk about the symptoms and causes of cold and influenza (flu). The study was designed to understand why older people might reject or accept the offer of seasonal flu vaccine, and in the course of the interviews respondents were also asked to express their views about the nature and causes of the two key illnesses. The latter are among the most common infections in human beings. In terms of the biomedical paradigm the common cold is caused by numerous respiratory viruses, whilst flu is caused by the influenza virus. Medical diagnosis is usually made on clinical grounds without laboratory confirmation. Symptoms of flu include sudden onset of fever and cough, and colds are characterized by sneezing, sore throat, and runny nose, but in practice the symptoms often overlap. In this study we examine the degree by which the views of lay people with respect to both diagnosis and epidemiology diverge with that which is evident in biomedical discourse. Our results indicate that whilst most of the identified symptoms are common to lay and professional people, the former integrate symptoms into a markedly different observational frame from the latter. And as far as causation is concerned it is clear that lay people emphasize the role of 'resistance' and 'immunity' at least as much as 'infection' in accounting for the onset of colds and flu. The data are analyzed using novel methods that focus on the co-occurrence of concepts and are displayed as semantic networks. As well as reporting on its findings the authors draw out some implications of the study for social scientific and policy discussions concerning lay diagnosis, lay expertise and the concept of an expert patient., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although influenza immunisation is now recommended for all people aged 65 years and over in the UK, many people in that age group still remain unimmunised., Aim: To investigate lay beliefs about influenza and influenza vaccine in older people to identify appropriate ways of promoting vaccine uptake., Design: Qualitative study using narrative interviews., Setting: Urban and rural communities in South Wales., Method: Participants were 54 people aged 65 years and over who were interviewed in their own home. Of these, 11 were regularly immunised, 18 had consistently refused immunisation (refusers), 15 had defaulted (defaulters), five had never been offered immunisation, and five had recently been immunised for the first time., Results: There was an overwhelming consensus among immunised and unimmunised individuals that they were not at risk from influenza. Even if they did catch influenza, they would not suffer from any serious consequences. Refusers and defaulters were more likely to believe that the influenza vaccine had serious side-effects, while the regularly immunised group were more likely to perceive the vaccine as effective. Multiple prompts from family, friends, or primary care staff were important triggers for receiving immunisation., Conclusion: Many older people did not feel vulnerable to influenza, regardless of their age, and this influenced their views on the need for immunisation. Both refusers and defaulters overstated adverse effects from influenza vaccine so this is a potential target for an intervention. Individual prompts, particularly from GPs, seemed to be the most significant motivators to attend for immunisation.

Background: Important barriers to the wider implementation of shared decision making remain. The experiences of professionals who are skilled in this approach may identify how to overcome these barriers., Aims: To identify the experiences and views of professionals skilled in shared decision making and risk communication, exploring the opportunities and challenges for implementation., Design of Study: Qualitative study., Setting: Gwent Health Authority., Method: Exit interviews using focus group methodology with 20 GPs who had been in practice between 1 and 10 years, and participated in an explanatory trial lasting 6 months. The trial interventions comprised training in shared decision-making skills and the use of risk communication materials. The doctors consulted with up to 48 patients each (mean = 40, half of them audiotaped) for the study., Results: The GPs indicated positive attitudes towards involving patients and described positive effects on their consultations. However, the frequency of applying the new skills and tools was limited outside the trial. Doctors were selective about when they felt greater patient involvement was appropriate and feasible, rather than seeking to apply the approaches to the majority of consultations. They felt they often responded to consumer preferences for low levels of involvement in decision making. Time limitations were important in not implementing the approach more widely., Conclusion: The promotion of 'patient involvement' appears likely to continue. Professionals appear receptive to this, and willing to acquire the relevant skills. Strategies for wider implementation of patient involvement could address how consultations are scheduled in primary care, and raise consumers' expectations or desires for involvement.

The nature and effects of stigma have been widely discussed in the context of mental illness, and references to stigma are commonly used to explain a wide array of social processes. For example, it is often claimed that stigmatisation affects aspects of personal identity, that it underpins unjust and discriminatory behaviour, and that it is responsible for a reluctance among members of the lay public to disclose the presence of treatable psychiatric symptoms and problems to health professionals. A widespread reluctance to disclose symptoms of 'emotional problems' to health professionals is in fact well documented. Yet the reasons for such patterns of behaviour are far from clear. However, in this paper, on the basis of qualitative data collected from primary care attendees in Wales (N=127), the authors suggest that appeals to stigma are inadequate to explain the phenomenon. More likely, it seems, is that members of the lay public have markedly different images from health professionals of what constitutes a mild to moderate psychiatric problem. Consequently, it is argued that the phenomenon of non-disclosure could be viewed more accurately as a problem of alternative taxonomic systems than of fear of stigma. The implications of the argument for health practice and theory are outlined.

Background: The common mental disorders of depression and anxiety often remain undetected in general practice. Psychiatric screening instruments have been recommended to assist detection., Aim: To assess patients' attitudes towards the use of psychiatric screening questionnaires for common mental disorders within general practice., Design: Twenty focus groups comprising 127 patients were conducted in Wales, UK. The groups were distinguished by age, sex and locality., Results: The majority of respondents felt that the use of a screening questionnaire was acceptable and would be willing to complete one within a general practice setting. However, a number of individuals expressed concern about the validity of the kinds of questions asked and the usefulness of the instrument in practice. Respondents also discussed their concerns relating to issues of confidentiality and the doctor's response to the assessment., Conclusion: The study indicates that lay beliefs towards mental illness, particularly relating to perceived stigma, will continue to pose problems for the routine use of psychiatric case-finding questionnaires within general practice.

How, why, and under what kinds of circumstances lay people consult for symptoms of emotional distress are topics that have commanded various degrees of attention from secondary and primary care professionals. We argue below that many of the responses made by such professionals to these issues carry within them a set of very important assumptions about how members of the lay public view psychiatric symptoms. Whether such assumptions are justified by the evidence is, however, a matter of some debate. In what follows we draw on some recent, sociologically informed research on lay attitudes to emotional distress so as to highlight the debates and to suggest some ways in which they might be resolved.