Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T17:27:55.653Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

General practitioners' attitudes to patients who have learning disabilities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2002

F. GILL
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of Birmingham
B. STENFERT KROESE
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of Birmingham
J. ROSE
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of Birmingham

Abstract

Background. Previous research suggests that the inadequate primary health care received by people with learning disabilities may be the result of general practitioners' (GPs) negative attitudes. Few studies have investigated the evidence for this assumption. This study uses psychological theory to inform an investigation of the attitudes and emotions experienced by GPs when working with learning disabled patients, as assessed by reliable and valid measures.

Method. A questionnaire comprising an attitude measure and emotion measure was developed and tested for reliability and validity. This was mailed out to a total of 613 GPs registered with three Health Authorities, 310 questionnaires (51%) were returned.

Results. GP respondents held positive attitudes to working with patients who have learning disabilities. However, they were less positive about adapting their behaviour. Attitudes varied according to respondents' age and frequency of professional contact with this patient group. There was a strong association between attitudes and emotional experience. Attitudes were unaffected by learning disability training and non-professional contact.

Conclusions. Negative perceptions about working with patients with learning disabilities do not fully explain the inadequate healthcare provided to this group. Other factors may include insufficient awareness of the benefits of adapting the format of a consultation, and the quality of the interface between the GP and the carer accompanying the patient.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2002 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)