↓ Skip to main content

General practitioners’ experiences and perceptions of mild moderate depression management and factors influencing effective service delivery in rural Australian communities: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Mental Health Systems, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
General practitioners’ experiences and perceptions of mild moderate depression management and factors influencing effective service delivery in rural Australian communities: a qualitative study
Published in
International Journal of Mental Health Systems, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13033-017-0159-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tamishka De Silva, Anjali Prakash, Sandhya Yarlagadda, Marjia Daniella Johns, Kate Sandy, Vibeke Hansen, Sue Phelan, Sabrina Pit

Abstract

Rural communities in Australia face significant disadvantages relating to geographical isolation and limited access to mental health services. Documenting general practitioners' (GP) experiences and perception of mental health services in rural Australia may be useful to gain insight into rural GP management of mild to moderate depression. To explore GPs' experience and views on which factors influence access to mental health services for mild to moderate depression. This qualitative study was conducted in 2014 in the Northern Rivers, NSW, Australia. Data were obtained from semi-structured in-depth face-to-face interviews with ten GPs, and analyses were performed using a general inductive method of thematic analysis. Most GPs believed that the current services for managing mild-moderate depression were adequate, however they also identified the need for better access and more services that were free for patients. GPs had a positive perception of management of depression in a rural setting, identifying advantages including better doctor-patient relationships, continuity of care and the proximity of services. However, GPs also identified several barriers to access to mental health services in a rural setting, including long waiting-times, inadequate patient rapport with referred professionals, cost of treatment, transportation, geographical location, stigma, and lack of education about available mental health services. As a result, GPs frequently self-managed patients in addition to referring them to other community mental health service providers where possible. Overall, GPs appeared relatively satisfied with the resources available in their communities but also identified numerous barriers to access and room for improvement. Rural GPs often self-managed patients in addition to referring patients to other mental health services providers. This should be taken into account when designing mental health policies, developing new services or re-designing current services in rural communities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Researcher 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 19 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 9 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 17%
Psychology 9 17%
Unspecified 1 2%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 21 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 November 2019.
All research outputs
#6,591,214
of 23,316,003 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Mental Health Systems
#378
of 721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,823
of 319,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Mental Health Systems
#9
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,316,003 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,065 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.