Cited by 88Mental Health Treatment and AccessAging, Health, and DisabilityHealth and Well-being Studies

Why may older people with depression not present to primary care? Messages from secondary analysis of qualitative data: Depression in older people

Open access
Chew-Graham, Carolyn, Kovandžić, Marija, Gask, Linda, Burroughs, Heather, Clarke, Pamela, Sanderson, Helen, Dowrick, Christopher·2012·Health & Social Care in the Community

Abstract

Depression in older people is common, under-recognised and often undertreated. This study aimed to explore the reasons why older people with depression may not present to primary care. Secondary analysis was carried out, of qualitative data collected in two previous studies in North-West England. Older people are reluctant to recognise and name 'depression' as a set of symptoms that legitimises attending their general practitioner (GP). They do not consider themselves candidates for help for their distress. This is partly due to perceptions of the role of the GP but also to previous negative experiences of help seeking. In addition, treatments offered, which are predominantly biomedical, may not be acceptable to older people. Interventions offered to older people need to encourage social engagement, such as befriending, and enhancement of creative, physical and social activity.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2524.2011.01015.x

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Deep rooted communication issues such as differential mental health models, perceived candidacy for treatment and recursivity in cultural expectations of treatment exist in both groups.

    “A marked difference between groups included meeting the language needs of some minority patients, however deep rooted communication issues such as differential mental health models [21], perceived candidacy for treatment [22] and recursivity in cultural expectations of treatment [23] exist in both groups [8].”

    From Development and evaluation of culturally sensitive psychosocial interventions for under-served people in primary care (2014) · cites this paper as [21]

    The Conclusions (page unavailable) discuss older patients’ perceived candidacy for help, how prior encounters affect future help-seeking, and mismatches between anticipated care and what patients think would help. The Use of secondary analysis section (page unavailable) reports similar concerns about the legitimacy of seeking care and service receptivity across the older-person data and the larger hard-to-reach-groups study. It does not establish that all three specified communication issues, particularly differential mental-health models and cultural expectations of treatment, exist in both groups. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Craig R. & Mindell J. (eds.) (2007) Health Survey for England 2005: Health of Older People. The Information Centre, Leeds.
  2. Dixon-Woods M., Kirk D., Agarwal S., Arthur T., Harvey J., Hsu R., Katbamna S., Olsen R., Smith L., Sutton AJ., Riley R. (2005) Vulnerable Groups and Access to Healthcare: A Critical Interpretive Review: Report for the National Coor- dinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation R&D (NCCSDO), NCCSDO, London.
  3. Szabo V. & Strang V.R. (1997) Secondary analysis of quali- tative data. Advances in Nursing Science, 20 (2), 66-74.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chew-Graham, C., Kovandžić, M., Gask, L., Burroughs, H., Clarke, P., Sanderson, H., & Dowrick, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust (GB)
Venue
Health & Social Care in the Community
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-07-12
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
52-60
ISSN
0966-0410 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1946983294
Cited by
88
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
FWCI
5.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health & Social Care in the Community (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (RP-PG-0606-1071)
  • Age UK
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Aging, Health, and Disability
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Health and Well-being Studies
Keywords
geriatric depression, help-seeking, primary care, general practitioners, treatment acceptability, biomedical treatment, social engagement, befriending
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Depression, England, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Primary Health Care, Social Support, Qualitative Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review