Patients' and health professionals' views on primary care for people with serious mental illness : focus group study

Objective To explore the experience of providing and receiving primary care from the perspectives of primary care health professionals and patients with serious mental illness respectively. Design Qualitative study consisting of six patient groups, six health professional groups, and six combined focus groups. Setting Six primary care trusts in the West Midlands. Participants Forty five patients with serious mental illness, 39 general practitioners (GPs), and eight practice nurses. Results Most health professionals felt that the care of people with serious mental illness was too specialised for primary care. However, most patients viewed primary care as the cornerstone of their health care and prefer-red to consult their own GP, who listened and was willing to learn, rather than be referred to a different,GP with specific mental health knowledge. Swift access was important to patients, with barriers created by the effects of the illness and the noisy or crowded waiting area. Some patients described how they exaggerated symptoms ("acted up") to negotiate an urgent appointment, a strategy that was also employed by some GPs to facilitate admission to secondary care. Most participants felt that structured reviews of care had value. However, whereas health professionals perceived serious mental illness as a lifelong condition, patients emphasised the importance of optimism in treatment and hope for recovery. Conclusions Primary care is of central importance to people with serious mental illness. The challenge for health professionals and patients is to create a system in which patients can see a health professional when they want to without needing to exaggerate their symptoms. The importance that patients attach to optimism in treatment, continuity of care, and listening skills compared with specific mental health knowledge should encourage health professionals in primary care to play a greater role in the care of patients with serious mental illness

The Effect of Exercise on Cigarette Craving and Withdrawal Symptoms While Using a Nicotine Lozenge

It is imperative that smoking cessation aids effectively alleviate cigarette craving and withdrawal symptoms because their intensity has shown to predict relapse. The nicotine lozenge is a pharmacotherapy that has shown to reduce symptoms of craving and withdrawal. Research has also shown that a single session of exercise can provide temporary relief from craving and withdrawal for smokers who are both temporarily abstaining and undergoing a real quit attempt. Applying two efficacious monotherapies concurrently may provide additive benefit and greater symptom relief. Thirty recently quit smokers were randomized to either the experimental (exercise and lozenge) or control (lozenge alone) condition. While both conditions demonstrated reductions in craving, the reduction was significantly greater for the experimental group. These findings demonstrate that an acute bout of exercise provides additional craving relief to the nicotine lozenge in recently quit smokers

The handling of the junior doctors’ strike reinforces a vision of the NHS where key voices are neither sought nor listened to

Despite the rise of patient and public involvement, evidence from the junior doctor’s strike suggests that little has changed in terms of the power of Westminster and the lack of public accountability for decisions that lie at the heart of how the NHS is organised. Here, Jonathan Tritter and Mio Fredriksson discuss the tensions between representative and participatory democracy in NHS decision-making, and argue that Jeremy Hunt is pursuing a centralised vision of the NHS rather than responding to consumer-driven demand

The COVID-19 pandemic in Norway: The dominance of social implications in framing the policy response

Objectives To describe the impact and policy response to the COVID-19 Pandemic on Norway and the implications this has for future policy development and Norwegian society. Methods Documentary analysis of publicly available statistics, government documents and media sources. Results : Three different agendas motivated Norwegian policy: stemming the spread of the virus domestically, mitigating the impact on the economy and addressing the social costs of the policy response. Conclusions The oil and gas industry and the Sovereign Wealth Fund have permitted Norway to manage the costs of the pandemic. But may also lead to a shift in government priorities in health, social and economic policy

Disentangling patient and public involvement in healthcare decisions:why the difference matters

Patient and public involvement has become an integral aspect of many developed health systems and is judged to be an essential driver for reform. However, little attention has been paid to the distinctions between patients and the public, and the views of patients are often seen to encompass those of the general public. Using an ideal-type approach, we analyse crucial distinctions between patient involvement and public involvement using examples from Sweden and England. We highlight that patients have sectional interests as health service users in contrast to citizens who engage as a public policy agent reflecting societal interests. Patients draw on experiential knowledge and focus on output legitimacy and performance accountability, aim at typical representativeness, and a direct responsiveness to individual needs and preferences. In contrast, the public contributes with collective perspectives generated from diversity, centres on input legitimacy achieved through statistical representativeness, democratic accountability and indirect responsiveness to general citizen preferences. Thus, using patients as proxies for the public fails to achieve intended goals and benefits of involvement. We conclude that understanding and measuring the impact of patient and public involvement can only develop with the application of a clearer comprehension of the differences

Getting involved:The extent and impact of patient and public involvement in the Swedish health system

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is framed as beneficial for individuals and for the health system. However, little is known about the extent of involvement, or of its impact. Based on data from Sweden, we show that apart from voting in regional elections (76%), more people reported involvement as individual patients (23%) than part of collective activities (5%) or activities relating to a citizen perspective (4%). There was no correlation between how many people participated and the estimated impact - which was generally low. More extensive involvement is thus not linked to the potential to influence decisions. We argue that to achieve the benefits associated with PPI it is crucial to understand more about people's motivation for being involved and what underlies low estimates of impact. This requires a more systematic approach to involvement, how it is evaluated and its results communicated to participants and the society. We also argue that a future challenge for the Swedish health system, and for other similar health systems, is to support long-term collective involvement in the midst of growing individualization of health services and involvement opportunities primarily intended for patients

Involvement that makes an impact on healthcare:Perceptions of the Swedish public

Aim: ‘Participation and influence in society’ is the first of 11 objective domains in Swedish public health policy. The aim of this article is to investigate the views of the Swedish general population on the impact of a range of health participation activities, and whether these views were associated with sociodemographic characteristics. Methods: The study utilizes a national representative survey of the Swedish population, aged 15 years and over (n = 1500). Results: Apart from voting in regional elections – which most of the respondents believed to be an influential way to make improvements in healthcare (74%) – respondents believed more in individual patient activities than activities associated with adopting a citizen role and acting collectively. A majority of respondents believed in the impact of replying to patient surveys (67%), making a complaint (61%), talking directly to staff (58%) or changing their healthcare provider (54%). Fewer believed in the impact of joining a patient organization (46%), taking part in a citizen council (35%) or joining a political party (34%). Beliefs in impact increased with educational attainment and decreased with age. Conclusions: The results suggest people have more confidence in the impact of participating as individual patients rather than collectively and as citizens. To ensure that activities enable ‘participation and influence in society’, complementary opportunities for collective involvement that also take into account under-represented voices such as those with a low level of education need to be developed

The disciplining of Self-Help:Doing self-help the Norwegian way

We explore how Norwegian self-help groups are defined and managed to create a particular form of health system governmentality. Self-help groups are typically framed as therapeutic communities where participants define the agenda creating a space where open and equal interaction can produce individual learning and personal growth. In Norway, however, self-help groups are managed in a way that integrates them in to the health system but insulates them from clinical medicine; an approach that disciplines participants to act in a particular way in relation to the health system. We draw on the analysis of 1456 pages of public documents and websites from the National Nodal Point for Self-Help (NPSH), the organisation that manages self-help groups, and central government including individual testimonies from participants published between 2006 and 2014. We argue, drawing on Foucault, that self-help premised on lay-leadership and self-determination is at odds with the centrally defined regulation apparent in the model adopted in Norway and an example of disciplining that reinforces health system governmentality and serves the interests of the medical profession and the state. Further we propose that this illustrates the contestation between the pastoral power of medics, the National Nodal Point for Self-Help and the Ministry of Health. Our analysis of Norwegian self-help as a mechanism to create a particular form of health system governmentality helps explain the expansion of self-help and self-management within developed health systems and provides an explanation for why self-help within health systems, is typically situated adjacent to, rather than integrated into, clinical medicine