Table 3 Summary of findings for experiences and perceptions of using the MINI
| Main category |
PATIENTS category |
INTERVIEWERS category |
REFERRING GPs category | Corresponding item in the questionnaires |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived strengths of the MINI | Structured format and detailed questions that often capture the problem | P4, P10, I2 | ||
| The MINI does not evoke negative emotions | MINI does not evoke emotions | P3, P5, I8 | ||
| Perceived advantages of using the MINI for GPs | More accurate diagnoses facilitate the work of the GP | |||
| A useful standard test for deeper investigations and selected patients | ||||
| Perceived advantages of using the MINI for patients | New insight into the problem | P2, P9, I5 | ||
| The MINI is mostly meaningful | P1, P6, I10 | |||
| The MINI may lead to better treatment | ||||
| Perceived weaknesses of the MINI | It is a constraint to only answer yes and no | |||
| Some questions are problematic, and some common problems are not covered | ||||
| The results of the MINI may be biased | P8, I7 | |||
| The duration of the MINI as a potential concern | The duration was acceptable | The MINI most often takes a short period of time | Time recording | |
| It could be problematic to fit the MINI into the GP consultation scheme | ||||
| The MINI is an additional tool and a personal contact with the interviewer is important | The MINI is just one part of the diagnostic procedure and its role must be explained | P7, I6, I9 | ||
| The personal contact is important for most patients | ||||