Article

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.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Juan V Luciano, Jun 20, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
155 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: 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. Methods: A systematic review of English and non-English articles, from inception to March 2014, was performed using database PubMed, British Nursing Index and Archive, Ovid Medline (R), PsychINFO, Books@Ovid, PsycARTICLES Full Text, EMBASE Classic + Embase, DARE (Database of Abstract of Reviews of Effectiveness) and the Cochrane Library electronic database. Search term included depression, collaborative care, physician family and allied health professional. RCTs comparing collaborative care to usual care for depression in primary care were included. Titles and abstracts were independently examined by two reviewers, who extracted from the included trials information on participants' characteristics, type of intervention, features of collaborative care and type of outcome measure. Results: The 17 papers included, regarding 15 RCTs, involved 3240 participants. Primary analyses showed that collaborative care models were associated with greater improvement in depression outcomes in the short term, within 3 months (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI = -0.33; -0.05; p = 0.006), medium term, between 4 and 11 months (SMD -0.24, 95% CI = -0.39; -0.09; p = 0.001) and medium-long term, from 12 months and over (SMD -0.21, 95% CI = -0.37; -0.04; p = 0.01), compared to usual care. Conclusions: The present review, specifically focusing on European countries, shows that collaborative care is more effective than treatment as usual in improving depression outcomes.
    Journal of Psychosomatic Research 08/2014; 77(4). DOI:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2014.08.006 · 2.84 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background A collaborative care programme for depression in primary care has proven clinical effectiveness over a 12-months period. Because depression tends to relapse and to chronic course, our aim was to determine whether the effectiveness observed in the first year persists during 3 years of monitoring. Methods Randomised controlled trial with twenty primary care centres were allocated to intervention group or usual care group. The intervention consisted of a collaborative care programme with clinical, educational and organisational procedures. Outcomes were monitored by a blinded interviewer at baseline, 12 and 36 months. Clinical outcomes were response to treatment and remission rates, depression severity and health-related quality of life. Trial registration: ISRCTN16384353. Results A total of 338 adult patients with major depression (DSM-IV) were assessed at baseline. At 36 months, 137 patients in the intervention group and 97 in the control group were assessed (attrition 31%). The severity of depression (mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score) was 0.95 points lower in the intervention group [6.31 versus 7.25; p=0.324]. The treatment response rate was 5.6% higher in the intervention group than in the control group [66.4% versus 60.8%; p=0.379] and the remission rate was 9.2% higher [57.7% versus 48.5%; p=0.164]. No difference reached statistical significance. Limitations The number of patients lost (31%) before follow-up may have introduced a bias. Conclusions Clinical benefits shown in the first year were not maintained beyond: at 36 months the differences between the control group and the intervention group reduced in all the analysed variables.
    Journal of Affective Disorders 05/2014; 166:36–40. DOI:10.1016/j.jad.2014.05.003 · 3.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Collaborative care programmes lead to better outcomes in the management of depression. A programme of this nature has demonstrated its effectiveness in primary care in Spain. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this programme compared to usual care. Methods A bottom-up cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted within a randomized controlled trial (2007–2010). The intervention consisted of a collaborative care programme with clinical, educational and organizational procedures. Outcomes were monitored over a 12 months period. Primary outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER): mean differences in costs divided by quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and mean differences in costs divided by depression-free days (DFD). Analyses were performed from a healthcare system perspective (considering healthcare costs) and from a society perspective (including healthcare costs plus loss of productivity costs). Results Three hundred and thirty-eight adult patients with major depression were assessed at baseline. Only patients with complete data were included in the primary analysis (166 in the intervention group and 126 in the control group). From a healthcare perspective, the average incremental cost of the programme compared to usual care was €182.53 (p<0.001). Incremental effectiveness was 0.045 QALY (p=0.017) and 40.09 DFD (p=0.011). ICERs were €4,056/QALY and €4.55/DFD. These estimates and their uncertainty are graphically represented in the cost-effectiveness plane. Limitations The amount of 13.6% of patients with incomplete data may have introduced a bias. Available data about non-healthcare costs were limited, although they may represent most of the total cost of depression. Conclusions The intervention yields better outcomes than usual care with a modest increase in costs, resulting in favourable ICERs. This supports the recommendation for its implementation.
    Journal of Affective Disorders 04/2014; 159:85–93. DOI:10.1016/j.jad.2014.01.021 · 3.71 Impact Factor