Primary care physicians' perceptions of social determinants of health recommendations: a qualitative study.

Junki Mizumoto, Toshichika Mitsuyama, Masato Eto, Masashi Izumiya, Shoko Horita
Author Information
  1. Junki Mizumoto: Department of Medical Education Studies, International Research Center for Medical Education, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan jnk_mizu@yahoo.co.jp. ORCID
  2. Toshichika Mitsuyama: Department of Medical Education Studies, International Research Center for Medical Education, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
  3. Masato Eto: Department of Medical Education Studies, International Research Center for Medical Education, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
  4. Masashi Izumiya: Department of Medical Education Studies, International Research Center for Medical Education, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
  5. Shoko Horita: Department of Medical Education Studies, International Research Center for Medical Education, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Several organisations have called for primary care professionals to address social determinants of health (SDoH) in clinical settings. For primary care physicians to fulfill their community health responsibilities, the implications of the SDoH recommendations need to be clarified.
AIM: To describe primary care physicians' views about being asked to address SDoH in clinical settings, from both positive and negative perspectives.
DESIGN & SETTING: A qualitative study in Japan. Twenty-one physicians were purposively recruited.
METHOD: 'Love and breakup letter' methodology was used to collect qualitative data that contained both positive and negative feelings. Participants wrote love and breakup letters about being asked to address SDoH in a clinical setting, then undertook an in-depth online interview. Data were analysed via thematic analysis using the framework approach.
RESULTS: The following themes were identified: (i) primary care physicians take pride in being expected to address SDoH; (ii) primary care physicians rely on the recommendations as a partner, even in difficult situations; (iii) primary care physicians consider the recommendations to be bothersome, with unreasonable demands and challenges, especially when supportive surroundings are lacking; and (iv) primary care physicians reconstruct the recommendations on the basis of their experience.
CONCLUSION: Primary care physicians felt both sympathy and antipathy towards recommendations asking them to address SDoH in their clinical practice. The recommendations were not followed literally, instead contributing to physicians' clinical mindlines. Professional organisations that plan to develop and publish recommendations about SDoH should consider how their recommendations might be perceived by their target audience.

Keywords

References

  1. Am Fam Physician. 2019 May 15;99(10):602-605 [PMID: 31083876]
  2. J Gen Fam Med. 2019 May 13;20(5):170-179 [PMID: 31516802]
  3. Fam Med. 2021 Jun 8;53(7):499-505 [PMID: 34101819]
  4. Br J Gen Pract. 2021 Sep 30;71(711):468-469 [PMID: 34593402]
  5. J Gen Fam Med. 2022 Jun 02;23(6):411-412 [PMID: 36349213]
  6. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 1998 Oct;19(5):350-2 [PMID: 9809266]
  7. Acad Med. 2014 Sep;89(9):1245-51 [PMID: 24979285]
  8. BMJ. 2004 Oct 30;329(7473):1013 [PMID: 15514347]
  9. J Am Board Fam Med. 2018 May-Jun;31(3):351-363 [PMID: 29743219]
  10. Ann Fam Med. 2009 Mar-Apr;7(2):100-3 [PMID: 19273863]
  11. Lancet. 2002 Jul 20;360(9328):252-4 [PMID: 12133675]
  12. Aust Fam Physician. 2003 Jan-Feb;32(1-2):47-50 [PMID: 12647660]
  13. J Am Board Fam Med. 2016 Jul-Aug;29 Suppl 1:S69-71 [PMID: 27387169]
  14. PLoS One. 2020 May 5;15(5):e0232076 [PMID: 32369511]
  15. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Sep 18;13:117 [PMID: 24047204]
  16. Ann Fam Med. 2016 Mar;14(2):102-3 [PMID: 26951583]
  17. Fam Pract Manag. 2018 May/Jun;25(3):3 [PMID: 29989772]
  18. Med Educ. 2021 Jul;55(7):818-824 [PMID: 33529431]
  19. J Fam Pract. 1982 May;14(5):881-8 [PMID: 7077248]
  20. J Gen Fam Med. 2022 May 15;23(5):319-326 [PMID: 36093216]
  21. Health Aff (Millwood). 2002 Mar-Apr;21(2):78-93 [PMID: 11900188]
  22. Am J Prev Med. 2016 Feb;50(2):129-35 [PMID: 26526164]
  23. Fam Pract. 2019 Nov 18;36(6):680-684 [PMID: 31329866]
  24. Ann Fam Med. 2019 Nov;17(6):487-494 [PMID: 31712286]
  25. Ann Intern Med. 2018 Apr 17;168(8):577-578 [PMID: 29677265]
  26. Can Fam Physician. 2016 Nov;62(11):e684-e693 [PMID: 28661888]
  27. Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2010 May 03;5:6 [PMID: 20438627]
  28. BMC Med Educ. 2022 Oct 20;22(1):729 [PMID: 36266644]
  29. Lancet. 1971 Feb 27;1(7696):405-12 [PMID: 4100731]
  30. Ann Fam Med. 2007 Nov-Dec;5(6):503-10 [PMID: 18025487]
  31. Med J Aust. 2002 Jul 15;177(2):80-3 [PMID: 12098344]
  32. Implement Sci. 2015 Apr 09;10:45 [PMID: 25890280]
  33. N Engl J Med. 2016 Jan 7;374(1):8-11 [PMID: 26731305]
  34. Fam Syst Health. 2018 Dec;36(4):550-552 [PMID: 30589331]
  35. Health Equity. 2019 Aug 23;3(1):449-457 [PMID: 31448355]
  36. Nature. 2020 Aug;584(7821):430-436 [PMID: 32640463]
  37. Am J Public Health. 2003 Feb;93(2):248-55 [PMID: 12554578]
  38. Br J Gen Pract. 2021 Feb 25;71(704):e185-e192 [PMID: 33318089]
  39. J Gen Fam Med. 2021 May 14;22(6):316-326 [PMID: 34226858]
  40. Implement Sci. 2014 May 06;9:54 [PMID: 24885925]
  41. J Gen Fam Med. 2021 Nov 01;22(6):314-315 [PMID: 34754709]
  42. Fam Pract Manag. 2018 May/Jun;25(3):7-12 [PMID: 29989777]
  43. JAMA. 2016 Aug 23-30;316(8):813-4 [PMID: 27367226]
  44. Health Promot J Austr. 2006 Dec;17(3):264-5 [PMID: 17176245]
  45. BMJ. 2020 May 4;369:m1810 [PMID: 32366374]
  46. Lancet. 2008 Nov 8;372(9650):1661-9 [PMID: 18994664]
  47. Med Educ. 2021 Mar;55(3):394-403 [PMID: 33128262]
  48. Ann Fam Med. 2016 Mar;14(2):100-1 [PMID: 26951582]
  49. Arch Intern Med. 2012 Oct 8;172(18):1377-85 [PMID: 22911330]
  50. Med Care. 2019 Jun;57 Suppl 6 Suppl 2:S197-S201 [PMID: 31095061]
  51. Asia Pac Fam Med. 2014 Oct 3;13:11 [PMID: 28392748]
  52. Soc Sci Med. 1996 Jan;42(1):35-46 [PMID: 8745106]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0careprimaryrecommendationsSDoHphysiciansaddresshealthclinicalqualitativesocialdeterminantsphysicians'breakuporganisationssettingsaskedpositivenegativestudymethodologyloveconsiderPrimarypracticeBACKGROUND:SeveralcalledprofessionalsfulfillcommunityresponsibilitiesimplicationsneedclarifiedAIM:describeviewsperspectivesDESIGN&SETTING:JapanTwenty-onepurposivelyrecruitedMETHOD:'Loveletter'usedcollectdatacontainedfeelingsParticipantswroteletterssettingundertookin-depthonlineinterviewDataanalysedviathematicanalysisusingframeworkapproachRESULTS:followingthemesidentified:takeprideexpectediirelypartnerevendifficultsituationsiiibothersomeunreasonabledemandschallengesespeciallysupportivesurroundingslackingivreconstructbasisexperienceCONCLUSION:feltsympathyantipathytowardsaskingfollowedliterallyinsteadcontributingmindlinesProfessionalplandeveloppublishmightperceivedtargetaudienceperceptionsrecommendations:generalletterresearch

Similar Articles

Cited By (1)