Is major depression adequately diagnosed and treated by general practitioners? Results from an epidemiological study.

Sant Joan de Déu-SSM, Fundació Sant Joan de Déu, Barcelona, Spain.
General Hospital Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 2.9). 03/2010; 32(2):201-209. DOI: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2009.11.015
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to (1) to explore the validity of the depression diagnosis made by the general practitioner (GP) and factors associated with it, (2) to estimate rates of treatment adequacy for depression and factors associated with it and (3) to study how rates of treatment adequacy vary when using different assessment methods and criteria.
Epidemiological survey carried out in 77 primary care centres representative of Catalonia. A total of 3815 patients were assessed.
GPs identified 69 out of the 339 individuals who were diagnosed with a major depressive episode according to the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID-I) (sensitivity 0.22; kappa value: 0.16). The presence of emotional problems as the patients' primary complaint was associated with an increased probability of recognition. Rates of adequacy differed according to criteria: in the cases detected with the SCID-I interview, adequacy was 39.35% when using only patient self-reported data and 54.91% when taking into account data from the clinical chart. Rates of adequacy were higher when assessing adequacy among those considered depressed by the GP.
GPs adequately treat most of those whom they consider to be depressed. However, they fail to recognise depressed patients when compared to a psychiatric gold standard. Rates of treatment adequacy varied widely depending on the method used to assess them.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of collaborative care compared to Primary Care Physician's (PCP's) usual care in the treatment of depression, focusing on European countries.
    Journal of Psychosomatic Research 08/2014; · 2.84 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Clinical diagnosis of depressive and anxiety disorders has poor sensitivity, and treatment is often not guideline-concordant. This longitudinal study aims to compare diagnostic validity and treatment adequacy in primary care (PC) and specialized care (SC), to assess associated risk factors, and to evaluate their impact on clinical outcome at one-month and three-month follow-ups. Methods 212 patients with depressive and anxious symptoms were recruited from 3 PC and 1 SC centers in Barcelona, Spain. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated comparing medical records’ diagnoses with a reference (MINI interview). Adequate treatment was defined according to clinical guidelines. Logistic regression was used to estimate associations with risk factors. Impact on outcome was assessed with MANOVA models. Results Valid diagnosis of depression was more frequent in patients attending SC. Sensitivity for depression was 0.75 in SC and 0.49 in PC (adjusted OR=17.34, 95%CI 4.73–63.61). Detection of anxious comorbidity in depressed patients was low (50%) in SC. Treatment adequacy of depressive disorders was higher in SC than in PC (94.4% vs. 80.6%, adjusted OR=8.11, 95%CI 1.39–47.34). Depression severity was associated with valid diagnosis. Limitations Only four disorders (major depression, dysthymia, panic disorder and generalized anxiety disorder) were evaluated with the MINI interview in a convenience clinical sample. Treatment dosage was unavailable. Conclusions Our results suggest that GPs need tools to improve detection of depression and its severity. Psychiatrists should enhance recognition of anxious comorbidity. Evaluation of the impact on outcome deserves further research.
    Journal of Affective Disorders 10/2014; · 3.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Medicines are a major treatment modality for many mental illnesses, and with the growing burden of mental disorders worldwide pharmacists are ideally positioned to play a greater role in supporting people with a mental illness. This narrative review aims to describe the evidence for pharmacist-delivered services in mental health care and address the barriers and facilitators to increasing the uptake of pharmacist services as part of the broader mental health care team. This narrative review is divided into three main sections: (1) the role of the pharmacist in mental health care in multidisciplinary teams and in supporting early detection of mental illness; (2) the pharmacists' role in supporting quality use of medicines in medication review, strategies to improve medication adherence and antipsychotic polypharmacy, and shared decision making; and (3) barriers and facilitators to the implementation of mental health pharmacy services with a focus on organizational culture and mental health stigma. In the first section, the review presents new roles for pharmacists within multidisciplinary teams, such as in case conferencing or collaborative drug therapy management; and new roles that would benefit from increased pharmacist involvement, such as the early detection of mental health conditions, development of care plans and follow up of people with mental health problems. The second section describes the impact of medication review services and other pharmacist-led interventions designed to reduce inappropriate use of psychotropic medicines and improve medication adherence. Other new potential roles discussed include the management of antipsychotic polypharmacy and involvement in patient-centered care. Finally, barriers related to pharmacists' attitudes, stigma and skills in the care of patients with mental health problems and barriers affecting pharmacist-physician collaboration are described, along with strategies to reduce mental health stigma.
    International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 10/2014; 11(10):10967-10990. · 1.99 Impact Factor


Available from
May 29, 2014