Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMurphy, Kerryen
dc.contributor.authorO’Connor, Denise Aen
dc.contributor.authorBrowning, Colette J.en
dc.contributor.authorFrench, Simon D.en
dc.contributor.authorMichie, Susanen
dc.contributor.authorFrancis, Jill J.en
dc.contributor.authorRussell, Grant M.en
dc.contributor.authorWorkman, Barbaraen
dc.contributor.authorFlicker, Leonen
dc.contributor.authorEccles, Martin P.en
dc.contributor.authorGreen, Sally E.en
dc.date.accessioned2016-04-04T15:43:59Z
dc.date.available2016-04-04T15:43:59Z
dc.date.issued2016-04-04
dc.identifier.otherDOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-9-31
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1974/14175
dc.description.abstractBackground Dementia is a growing problem, causing substantial burden for patients, their families, and society. General practitioners (GPs) play an important role in diagnosing and managing dementia; however, there are gaps between recommended and current practice. The aim of this study was to explore GPs’ reported practice in diagnosing and managing dementia and to describe, in theoretical terms, the proposed explanations for practice that was and was not consistent with evidence-based guidelines. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs in Victoria, Australia. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) guided data collection and analysis. Interviews explored the factors hindering and enabling achievement of 13 recommended behaviours. Data were analysed using content and thematic analysis. This paper presents an in-depth description of the factors influencing two behaviours, assessing co-morbid depression using a validated tool, and conducting a formal cognitive assessment using a validated scale. Results A total of 30 GPs were interviewed. Most GPs reported that they did not assess for co-morbid depression using a validated tool as per recommended guidance. Barriers included the belief that depression can be adequately assessed using general clinical indicators and that validated tools provide little additional information (theoretical domain of ‘Beliefs about consequences’); discomfort in using validated tools (‘Emotion’), possibly due to limited training and confidence (‘Skills’; ‘Beliefs about capabilities’); limited awareness of the need for, and forgetting to conduct, a depression assessment (‘Knowledge’; ‘Memory, attention and decision processes’). Most reported practising in a manner consistent with the recommendation that a formal cognitive assessment using a validated scale be undertaken. Key factors enabling this were having an awareness of the need to conduct a cognitive assessment (‘Knowledge’); possessing the necessary skills and confidence (‘Skills’; ‘Beliefs about capabilities’); and having adequate time and resources (‘Environmental context and resources’). Conclusions This is the first study to our knowledge to use a theoretical approach to investigate the barriers and enablers to guideline-recommended diagnosis and management of dementia in general practice. It has identified key factors likely to explain GPs’ uptake of the guidelines. The results have informed the design of an intervention aimed at supporting practice change in line with dementia guidelines, which is currently being evaluated in a cluster randomised trial.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectDementiaen
dc.subjectGeneral practitioners (GPs)en
dc.subjectCognitive Assessmenten
dc.subjectDepression Assessmenten
dc.subjectTheoretical Domains Framework (TDF)en
dc.subjectGuideline Implementationen
dc.titleUnderstanding Diagnosis and Management of Dementia and Guideline Implementation in General Practice: a Qualitative Study Using the Theoretical Domains Frameworken
dc.typejournal articleen


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record