Article

Major depression symptoms in primary care and psychiatric care settings: A cross-sectional analysis

University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
The Annals of Family Medicine (Impact Factor: 4.57). 03/2007; 5(2):126-34. DOI: 10.1370/afm.641
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We undertook a study to confirm and extend preliminary findings that participants with major depressive disorder (MDD) in primary care and specialty care settings have with equivalent degrees of depression severity and an indistinguishable constellation of symptoms.
Baseline data were collected for a distinct validation cohort of 2,541 participants (42% primary care) from 14 US regional centers comprised of 41 clinic sites (18 primary care, 23 specialty care). Participants met broadly inclusive eligibility criteria requiring a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, diagnosis of MDD and a minimum depressive symptom score on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. The main outcome measures were the 30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology--Clinician Rated and the Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire.
Primary care and specialty care participants had identical levels of moderately severe depression and identical distributions of depressive severity scores. Both primary care and specialty care participants showed considerable suicide risk, with specialty care participants even more likely to report prior suicide attempts. Core depressive symptoms or concurrent psychiatric disorders were not substantially different between settings. One half of participants in each setting had an anxiety disorder (48.6% primary care vs 51.6% specialty care, P = .143), with social phobia being the most common (25.3% primary care vs 32.1% specialty care, P = .002).
For outpatients with nonpsychotic MDD, depressive symptoms and severity vary little between primary care and specialty care settings. In this large, broadly inclusive US sample, the risk factors for chronic and recurrent depressive illness were frequently present, highlighting a clear risk for treatment resistance and the need for aggressive management strategies in both settings.

0 Followers
 · 
90 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The diagnosis of depression is defined by psychiatrists, and guidelines for treatment of patients with depression are created in psychiatry. However, most patients with depression are treated exclusively in general practice. Psychiatrists point out that general practitioners' (GPs') treatment of depression is insufficient and a collaborative care (CC) model between general practice and psychiatry has been proposed to overcome this. However, for successful implementation, a CC model demands shared agreement about the concept of depression and the diagnostic process in the two sectors. We aimed to explore how depression is understood by GPs and clinical psychiatrists. We carried out qualitative in-depth interviews with 11 psychiatrists and 12 GPs. Analysis was made by Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. We found that the two groups of physicians differed considerably in their views on the usefulness of the concept of depression and in their language and narrative styles when telling stories about depressed patients. The differences were captured in three polarities which expressed the range of experiences in the two groups. Psychiatrists considered the diagnosis of depression as a pragmatic and agreed construct and they did not question its validity. GPs thought depression was a "gray area" and questioned the clinical utility in general practice. Nevertheless, GPs felt a demand from psychiatry to make their diagnosis based on instruments created in psychiatry, whereas psychiatrists based their diagnosis on clinical impression but used instruments to assess severity. GPs were wholly skeptical about instruments which they felt could be misleading. The different understandings could possibly lead to a clash of interests in any proposed CC model. The findings provide fertile ground for organizational research into the actual implementation of cooperation between sectors to explore how differences are dealt with.
    International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being 11/2014; 9:24866. DOI:10.3402/qhw.v9.24866 · 0.61 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Only a few studies have investigated the factors associated with suicidal behavior after antidepressant treatment onset in adults. We examined the specific predictors of de novo suicidal ideas or attempts among depressed patients in the community, including subjects potentially at risk of suicidal behaviors, who initiated a new antidepressant treatment. Methods A large set of GPs and psychiatrists throughout France followed-up, for 6 weeks, 4,357 outpatients for whom an antidepressant drug was prescribed. Dimensions related with antidepressant-induced suicidal events, such as depression, anxiety or hopelessness, were assessed longitudinally using univariate and multivariate approaches among subjects with treatment-emergent suicide ideation or attempts. Results New suicidal ideas were observed in 9% of patients with no suicidal ideation at baseline (n=81), while suicidal attempts were reported for 1.7% of the sample during the 6-week observation period (n=75). The onset of suicidal ideas and attempts was associated with the initial features of the patients (baseline level of anxiety, past history of suicide attempts and alcohol misuse) and the non-improvement of depression. Worsening of depressive symptoms during the follow-up increased the onset of new suicidal ideas (OR=5.67, p<.001) and attempts (OR=2.60, p=.002), corresponding to 67.5% and 56.5% of attributable risk respectively. Conclusions When the analyses are restricted to the occurrence of suicidal ideas or attempts, the link between antidepressants and suicide risk might be more adequately explained by a poor response to antidepressant treatment rather than by a direct trigger-effect. This naturalistic study is limited by the use of non-structured diagnoses and self-report outcomes.
    European Neuropsychopharmacology 10/2014; 24(10). DOI:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2014.07.007 · 5.40 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Depression disorder is a mental illness of high recurrence rate and its pathological mechanism is still unclear. 5-HT is the most widely studied neurotransmitter and high level of serum uric acid (SUA) can result from the increased oxygenolysis of nucleic acid. Aim of the present study is to explore the pathogenesis of adolescence depression through the study of SUA and 5-HT level in adolescent depressive patients. The SUA of 152 adolescent depressive patients and normal adolescents were tested respectively and 5-HT levels among them were analyzed. The SUA level of cases (434.57±102.34μmol/L) was significantly higher than controls (330.18±62.59μmol/L), P<0.001; the 5-HT level of cases (20.86±4.58) was significantly lower than controls (24.03±5.76) (P<0.005) and had a significant negative correlation with SUA level (r=-0.49, P<0.01). The sample size was relatively small and the patients were only male from General Hospital of Beijing Military Region. High level of SUA can be used as a biochemical index for the early diagnose of adolescence depression; adolescence depression may be due to DNA oxidative damage of neurons in brain. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
    Journal of Affective Disorders 12/2014; 174C:464-466. DOI:10.1016/j.jad.2014.12.031 · 3.71 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
19 Downloads
Available from
May 29, 2014