4.1 Article

Obesity in general practice A focus group study on patient experiences

期刊

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
卷 28, 期 4, 页码 205-210

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/02813432.2010.526773

关键词

Doctor-patient relations; focus groups; general practice; obesity; quality of health care; qualitative research

资金

  1. Health and Rehabilitation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To explore obese patients' experiences with GPs' management of their weight problems. Methods. Focus-group study with a purposive sample of 13 participants (eight women and five men), aged 30-55 years, with BMI above 40, or BMI above 35 with additional weight-related problems. Two focus-group interviews were conducted, inviting the participants to speak about their health care experiences from general practice. Analysis applied Systematic Text Condensation inspired by Giorgi's approach, searching for issues describing or discussing participants' experiences of GPs' obesity management. Results. Obese patients want their GPs to put their weight problems on the agenda. When the patient appears reluctant, it may be a sign of embarrassment rather than rejection of the issue. However, restricted attention to obesity could lead to neglect of patients' problems. Participants complained that GPs often demonstrated insufficient engagement and knowledge regarding service resources for obesity treatment, leaving the responsibility for information on available referral resources to the patient. Finally, considerate attitudes in the GPs are needed for follow-up to be experienced as helpful by the patients. Vulnerable feelings of failure could be reinforced by well-intended advice. Degrading attitudes were perceived as especially subversive when they came from doctors. Conclusions. The challenge for the GP is to increase his or her competence in individualized and evidence-based counselling, while acknowledging the efforts needed by the patient to achieve permanent change, and shifting attention from shame to coping.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据