A Letter of Consequence: Referral Letters from General Practitioners to Secondary Mental Health Services

The referral letter is a key instrument in moving patients from primary to secondary care services. Consequently, the circumstances in which a referral should be made and its contents have been the subject of clinical guidelines. This article is based on a project that demonstrated that physicians do not adhere to clinical guidelines when referring patients to secondary mental health services. This research supports earlier findings into noncompliance with guidelines by general practitioners (GPs). The authors briefly note possible reasons, which have been the subject of some debate. They also present a content analysis of referral letters to demonstrate the important ways in which they differ from guideline criteria. However, their central argument is that the role of the referral letter in relation to the GP’s repertoire of treatments has not been understood fully. Such understanding implies the need for a reexamination of the support available for GPs.

A Utilitarian Perspective of Social and Medical Contributions to Three Illustrative Conditions, and Recent UK NHS Policy Initiatives

Background: To date debate concerning the relative merits of social and medical sciences has been largely academic. Aims: To outline and critically appraise a utilitarian approach to mental health research that reflects a critical realist perspective. Method: Consideration of the relative utility of differing approaches to illustrative ‘‘psychiatric’’ disorders, and recent policy initiatives. Results: Socially relevant outcomes of Bipolar Affective Disorder are determined by influences that operate independently of the characteristic instability of mood. There is now a highly specific and effective psychological treatment for Panic Disorder. Its benefits are still not fully exploited because of continuing lay and professional focus upon the condition’s social manifestations. Great numbers of people presenting in primary care are unhelpfully caused to adopt the role of ‘‘patient’’ due to practices limiting the professional response to a medical one. Such practices reflect public and professional perceptions of the nature of ‘‘mental health difficulties’’ much more than they do the achievements of medicine. Recent policy-supporting initiatives influencing UK NHS mental health services are much more likely to be supported by social sciences than by medical research. Conclusions: There is considerable scope for a contribution to applied mental health research from frameworks and methodologies that are rooted in a social sciences perspective.

Bayesian analysis of a mastitis control plan to investigate the influence of veterinary prior beliefs on clinical interpretation

The fundamental objective for health research is to determine whether changes should be made to clinical decisions. Decisions made by veterinary surgeons in the light of new research evidence are known to be influenced by their prior beliefs, especially their initial opinions about the plausibility of possible results. In this paper, clinical trial results for a bovine mastitis control plan were evaluated within a Bayesian context, to incorporate a community of prior distributions that represented a spectrum of clinical prior beliefs. The aim was to quantify the effect of veterinary surgeons’ initial viewpoints on the interpretation of the trial results. A Bayesian analysis was conducted using Markov chain Monte Carlo procedures. Stochastic models included a financial cost attributed to a change in clinical mastitis following implementation of the control plan. Prior distributions were incorporated that covered a realistic range of possible clinical viewpoints, including scepticism, enthusiasm and uncertainty. Posterior distributions revealed important differences in the financial gain that clinicians with different starting viewpoints would anticipate from the mastitis control plan, given the actual research results. For example, a severe sceptic would ascribe a probability of 0.50 for a return of <£5 per cow in an average herd that implemented the plan, whereas an enthusiast would ascribe this probability for a return of >£20 per cow. Simulations using increased trial sizes indicated that if the original study was four times as large, an initial sceptic would be more convinced about the efficacy of the control plan but would still anticipate less financial return than an initial enthusiast would anticipate after the original study. In conclusion, it is possible to estimate how clinicians’ prior beliefs influence their interpretation of research evidence. Further research on the extent to which different interpretations of evidence result in changes to clinical practice would be worthwhile.