Skip Navigation


Family Practice Advance Access originally published online on August 4, 2007
Family Practice 2007 24(5):454-460; doi:10.1093/fampra/cmm034
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
24/5/454    most recent
cmm034v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Drennan, V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Drennan, V.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

Priorities in identifying unmet need in older people attending general practice: a nominal group technique study

Vari Drennan, Kate Waltersa, Penny Lenihanb, Shoshanna Cohenc, Sybil Myersona, Steve Iliffea and for the SPICE Research Group

a Department of Primary Care and Population Sciences, Royal Free and University College London Medical School, University College, London
b The Claybrook Centre, West London Mental Health Trust, London
c School of Medicine, Imperial College, London, UK

Correspondence to Dr Vari Drennan, Department of Primary Care and Population Sciences, Royal Free & University College London Medical School, University College London, Holborn Union building, Archway Campus, London N19 5NF, UK. Email: v.drennan{at}pcps.ucl.ac.uk

Received 4 January 2007; Revised 21 May 2007; Accepted 17 June 2007.


   Abstract

Background. Primary care practitioners are encouraged to identify unmet need in older people, but the best mechanisms for doing this are not known.

Objective. To identify common unmet needs, as perceived by older people and professionals, that could be enquired about during routine encounters in primary care.

Methods. This was a nominal group technique qualitative study conducted with older people in London and primary care professionals working in the same localities. Subjects were seven nominal groups of 5–12 participants each, four with culturally diverse user groups recruited through local community and voluntary sector resources and three with primary care professionals (GPs and nurses). Group interviews were conducted with two facilitators and one observer recording field notes and were tape-recorded and transcribed for data collection.

Results. Older people and professionals share some ideas about unmet need, but there are important differences. Older people may emphasize their autonomy and right to make choices, while professionals may use epidemiological knowledge to justify their own agendas, which may be considered intrusive. Nominal groups can be useful tools for capturing perspectives of different groups, but prioritization of themes identified by nominal groups may not always be feasible.

Conclusions. Unmet need is a complex concept, with different interpretations according to the perspective taken. Professionals relying on epidemiological knowledge to guide their enquiries about unmet needs in older patients may find that the needs that they identify are not perceived as unmet, or even meetable, by their patients.

Keywords. Ageing, health promotion, preventive medicine.


Drennan V, Walters K, Lenihan P, Cohen S, Myerson S and Iliffe S for the SPICE research group. Priorities in identifying unmet need in older people attending general practice: a nominal group technique study. Family Practice 2007; 24: 454–460.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
BMJHome page
I. Heath
Never had it so good?
BMJ, April 26, 2008; 336(7650): 950 - 951.
[Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.