Abstract
An exploratory, two-language, online survey assessed patients in relation to physician-services for HIV-infection. Most respondents had experienced primarily mental rather than physical illness due to HIV or its treatment, as well as a marked HIV-related impact on social networks. Mental and social factors were identified that predicted patients’ relationship to, and disengagement from, physicians’ services, including patients’ satisfaction, trust, physicians’ relational skills, time-pressure, the opportunity for clinical intimacy, physician-credibility; ‘heart-sink’ physicians, anxiety, passivity, self-efficacy, experience of HIV-related illness, experience of medication-toxicity, degree of loss in social networks, and ‘changing physician due to disagreement’, with ramifications for physicians’ concept of the ‘difficult patient’. The prevalence and significance of such issues and the related risk of distrust of, and disengagement from, physician-services confirm the still-remaining need for evidence-based treatment to be implemented for people with HIV, to include the delivery of integrated, multi-professional, and biopsychosocial health-services.
What do we know already about this topic?Mental and social aspects of illness affect services’ ability to help patients to get well and stay well (i.e., health-effectiveness), but since the advent of HAART few clinics provide integrated, biopsychosocial services necessary to address these issues, despite the extensive evidence-base demonstrating such need.
How does this research contribute to the field?This research: confirms the significance of biopsychosocial aspects of illness and identifies pervasive factors that intensify such challenges to the provision of health-effective services—and which can act as signal-events in quality-related service-audit—as well as analysing other factors, such as patients’ satisfaction, that have no value except to consumerism but relate to other variables, such as trust, that need to be used in service-evaluation.
What are the implications of this research for theory, practice, or policy?The implications of this research are that each services needs a competent, multi-professional team to address the biopsychosocial factors identified, and to integrate the factors into the audit of services’ health-effectiveness, supported by specific policy such as treatment-guidelines that require the evidence-based formulation and delivery of health-services, not solely pharmaceuticals of choice.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics committee/IRB called the Human and Life Sciences sub-committee review-board of Roehampton University UK gave ethical approval for this work
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Conflict of interest: none known
Human Welfare: The Human and Life Sciences sub-committee review-board at Roehampton University, UK, provided ethical approval of the survey’s methodology.
Declaration of funding: This research was unfunded but made possible by the support-in-lieu identified in the Acknowledgements and the donation of time by both authors to complete the research. Michaela Otis is funded by NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Northwest London. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon valid request to the lead author.
