The DOI matches its Crossref record; its reference list is not available.
General Practitioner Management of Depression: A Systematic Review
Abstract
Understanding how primary care clinicians manage depression is a key backdrop to current and future initiatives to improve detection and treatment of depression. We systematically reviewed, identified, and extracted findings from 13 qualitative studies that examined general practitioner (GP) management of depression. We assessed articles for quality using Critical Appraisal Skills Program guidelines for assessing qualitative research but did not exclude any articles based on quality. We carried out a thematic analysis for systematic review of qualitative research in which we identified four main themes with various subthemes: "negotiating the nature of depression," "detect and diagnose," "interventions," and "burden." The results of the analysis illuminate the complex dilemma faced by GPs in managing depression, which appears to be characterized by a sense of dissonance between the medicalization of depression and a sense of its social determinants.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
GP treatment options for depression and anxiety are generally limited to medication and referral to counselling or cognitive behavioural therapy.
“general practitioners (GP) treatment options are generally limited to medication and referral to counselling or cognitive behavioural therapy (Gilbody et al. , 2003; McPherson and Armstrong, 2012).”
From Do depressed and anxious men do groups? What works and what are the barriers to help seeking? (2014) · cites this paper as McPherson and Armstrong, 2012
Citations
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 26 · Cited by 25
Research works printed but not linked: 24
- 10.1093/fampra/19.6.623 · DOI
- 10.1093/fampra/18.1.64 · DOI
- Chew-Graham C. A., May C. R., Cole H., Hedley S. (2000). The burden of depression in primary care: A qualitative investigation of general practitioners’ constructs of depressed people in the inner city. Primary Care Psychiatry, 6(4), 137-141. Retrieved from http://caliban.ingentaconnect.com/vl=13111718/cl=12/nw=1/rpsv/cw/apl/13651501/contp1-1.htm · DOI
- 10.1093/fampra/19.6.632 · DOI
- Dixon-Woods M., Agarwal S., Jones D., Young B., Sutton A. (2005). Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 10, 45-53. Retrieved from http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/ · DOI · Paper page
- Dowrick C., 2004, Beyond depression: A new approach to understanding and management, 10.1093/oso/9780198526322.001.0001 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.05.031 · DOI
- 10.1177/1049732309341715 · DOI
- Johnston O., Kumar S., Kendall K., Peveler R., Gabbay J., Kendrick T. (2007). Qualitative study of depression management in primary care: GP and patient goals, and the value of listening. British Journal of General Practice, 57, e1-e14. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2169333/ · DOI
- Kessler R. C., Chiu W. T., Demler O., Walters E. E. (2005). Prevalence, severity, and comorbidity of twelve-month DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R). Archives of General Psychiatry, 62(6), 617-627. Retrieved from http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/62/6/617 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1186/1471-2296-10-53 · DOI
- Littlejohns P., Cluzeau F., Bale R., Grimshaw J., Feder G., Moran S. (1999). The quantity and quality of clinical practice guidelines for the management of depression in primary care in the UK. British Journal of General Practice, 49(440), 205-210. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/261/
- 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030442 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/17423953050010010401 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.05.021 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.05.032 · DOI
- Miedema B., Tatemichi S., Thomas-Maclean R., Stoppard J. (2004). Barriers to treating depression in the family physician’s office. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 23(1), 37-46. Retrieved from http://cjcmh.metapress.com/link.asp?id=hm4532151p883122 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61415-9 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.04092.x · DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.39268.475799.AD · DOI
- 10.1093/fampra/cmg306 · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1365-2524.2000.00233.x · DOI
- 10.1080/09638230125545 · DOI
- 10.1177/1363459304043461 · DOI
Metadata
- Authors
- McPherson, S., & Armstrong, D.
- Affiliations
- University of Essex (GB)
- King's College London (GB)
- Venue
- Qualitative Health Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-06-06
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1150-1159
- ISSN
- 1049-7323 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7557
- OpenAlex
- W2141305115
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 26
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 3.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Qualitative Health Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
- Open Access at Essex (University of Essex) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Mental Health Treatment and Access
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
- Keywords
- depression, general practitioners, primary care, depression treatment, depression detection, diagnosis, therapeutic interventions, clinician burden, medicalization, social determinants of mental health, clinician attitudes
- MeSH terms
- Clinical Competence, Depression, Humans, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Psychometrics, Social Support, Qualitative Research, Social Stigma, General Practitioners
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
