[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Objective. Literature suggests that serious mental health problems increase the use of health services and psychological interventions can reduce this effect. This study investigates whether this effect is also found in primary care patients with less serious mental health problems. Design/setting. Routine electronic health records (EHR) from a representative sample of 128 general practices were linked to patient files from 150 primary care psychologists participating in the NIVEL Primary Care Database, using a trusted third party. Data were linked using the date of birth, gender, and postcode. This yielded 503 unique data pairs that were listed in one of the participating GP practices in 2008-2010, for people who had psychological treatment from a psychologist that ended in 2009. Main outcome measures. The number of contacts, health problems presented, and prescribed medication in general practice were analysed before and after the psychological treatment. Results. Nearly all 503 patients consulted their GP during the six months preceding the psychological treatment (90.9%) and also in the six months after this treatment had ended (83.7%). The frequency of contacts was significantly higher before than after the psychological treatment (6.1 vs. 4.8). Fewer patients contacted their GPs specifically for psychological or social problems (46.3% vs. 38.8%) and fewer patients had anxiolytic drug prescriptions (15.5% vs. 7.6%) after psychological treatment. Conclusion. After psychological treatment, patients contact their GPs less often and present fewer psychological or social problems. Although contact rates seem to decrease, clients of psychologists are still frequent GP attenders.
Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care 08/2014; 32(3):1-7. DOI:10.3109/02813432.2014.953312 · 1.30 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: There is little evidence as to whether or not guideline concordant care in general practice results in better clinical outcomes for people with anxiety and depression. This study aims to determine possible associations between guideline concordant care and clinical outcomes in general practice patients with depression and anxiety, and identify patient and treatment characteristics associated with clinical improvement.
This study forms part of the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA).Adult patients, recruited in general practice (67 GPs), were interviewed to assess DSM-IV diagnoses during baseline assessment of NESDA, and also completed questionnaires measuring symptom severity, received care, socio-demographic variables and social support both at baseline and 12 months later. The definition of guideline adherence was based on an algorithm on care received. Information on guideline adherence was obtained from GP medical records.
721 patients with a current (6-month recency) anxiety or depressive disorder participated. While patients who received guideline concordant care (N=281) suffered from more severe symptoms than patients who received non-guideline concordant care (N=440), both groups showed equal improvement in their depressive or anxiety symptoms after 12 months. Patients who (still) had moderate or severe symptoms at follow-up, were more often unemployed, had smaller personal networks and more severe depressive symptoms at baseline than patients with mild symptoms at follow-up. The particular type of treatment followed made no difference to clinical outcomes.
The added value of guideline concordant care could not be demonstrated in this study. Symptom severity, employment status, social support and comorbidity of anxiety and depression all play a role in poor clinical outcomes.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This study of Australian and Dutch people with anxiety or depressive disorder aims to examine people's perceived needs and barriers to care, and to identify possible similarities and differences.
Data from the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-Being and the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety were combined into one data set. The Perceived Need for Care Questionnaire was taken in both studies. Logistic regression analyses were performed to check if similarities or differences between Australia and the Netherlands could be observed.
In both countries, a large proportion had unfulfilled needs and self-reliance was the most frequently named barrier to receive care. People from the Australian sample (N = 372) were more likely to perceive a need for medication (OR 1.8; 95% CI 1.3-2.5), counselling (OR 1.4; 95% CI 1.0-2.0) and practical support (OR 1.8; 95% CI 1.2-2.7), and people's overall needs in Australia were more often fully met compared with those of the Dutch sample (N = 610). Australians were more often pessimistic about the helpfulness of medication (OR 3.8; 95% CI 1.4-10.7) and skills training (OR 3.0; 95% CI 1.1-8.2) and reported more often financial barriers for not having received (enough) information (OR 2.4; 95% CI 1.1-5.5) or counselling (OR 5.9; 95% CI 2.9-11.9).
In both countries, the vast majority of mental health care needs are not fulfilled. Solutions could be found in improving professionals' skills or better collaboration. Possible explanations for the found differences in perceived need and barriers to care are discussed; these illustrate the value of examining perceived need across nations and suggest substantial commonalities of experience across the two countries.
Social Psychiatry 10/2011; 46(10):1033-44. DOI:10.1007/s00127-010-0266-3 · 2.54 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: To describe the direct and indirect costs for people with anxiety and depressive disorders where guidelines are adhered to and patients' perceived needs are fully met.
Data were derived from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety. At baseline, adult patients were interviewed and they completed questionnaires to measure DSM-IV diagnoses, socio-demographic characteristics and perceived need for care. Actual care data were also derived from electronic medical records. Criteria for guideline adherence were based on general practice guidelines, issued by the Dutch College of General Practitioners. Direct and indirect costs were inferred from the Perceived Need for Care Questionnaire administered at baseline, and the Trimbos and iMTA questionnaire on Costs associated with Psychiatric illness administered at 1-year follow-up.
For 568 patients with a current anxiety or depressive disorder a complete dataset on health care use and absenteeism was available. Guideline adherence was significantly associated with increased care use and corresponding costs, while fully met perceived need was unrelated to costs. Socio-demographic characteristics, severity of symptoms and guideline adherence all affected the societal costs of patients with fully met perceived needs compared with patients with perceived unmet needs.
It appears that guideline-concordant care for anxiety and depression costs more than non-concordant care, while care that has fulfilled all of a patient's needs seems not to be more expensive than care that has not met all perceived needs. However, randomized controlled trials should first confirm this conclusion.
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 08/2011; 17(4):537-46. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01490.x · 1.08 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: To evaluate care received for anxiety and depression, to identify which patient-, GP- and practice factors obstruct delivery of care in accordance with Dutch College of General Practitioners' (NHG) practice guidelines, and to evaluate the costs and effects of guideline-concordant care.
During the baseline assessment of the Netherlands study of depression and anxiety--which has followed a large number of adults with and without psychiatric complaints since 2004--various questionnaires and diagnostic interviews were completed. At one year follow-up, the severity of symptoms of anxiety and depression, overall functioning or dysfunction, healthcare use and absenteeism from employment over the past year were assessed. Data from electronic medical patient records were studied to determine whether NHG practice guidelines had been followed.
Of the 721 patients with an anxiety or depressive disorder, 57% (n = 413) indicated receiving some form of care; two-thirds of this group received appropriate care according to NHG practice guidelines (n = 281). At patient level the severity of depressive symptoms, the self-evaluated need for care, a high level of education and accessibility of care were most strongly associated with guideline adherence; at general practitioner level, collaboration with other mental health professionals was most strongly associated with guideline adherence. On average, all patients had symptoms that were less serious than a year previously, irrespective of which care they had received. Guideline-concordant care was significantly more expensive.
Half of the patients who had not received care did not think that they needed it. Of those who had received care, those with more severe symptoms and greatest need for care were most likely to have received guideline-concordant care. Both patients and general practitioners seemed well able to assess whether care was needed or not.
Nederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde 01/2011; 155:A2360.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: There is little evidence as to whether or not guideline concordant care in general practice results in better clinical outcomes for people with anxiety and depression. This study aims to determine possible associations between guideline concordant care and clinical outcomes in general practice patients with depression and anxiety, and identify patient and treatment characteristics associated with clinical improvement. METHODS: This study forms part of the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA).Adult patients, recruited in general practice (67 GPs), were interviewed to assess DSM-IV diagnoses during baseline assessment of NESDA, and also completed questionnaires measuring symptom severity, received care, socio-demographic variables and social support both at baseline and 12 months later. The definition of guideline adherence was based on an algorithm on care received. Information on guideline adherence was obtained from GP medical records. RESULTS: 721 patients with a current (6-month recency) anxiety or depressive disorder participated. While patients who received guideline concordant care (N=281) suffered from more severe symptoms than patients who received non-guideline concordant care (N=440), both groups showed equal improvement in their depressive or anxiety symptoms after 12 months. Patients who (still) had moderate or severe symptoms at follow-up, were more often unemployed, had smaller personal networks and more severe depressive symptoms at baseline than patients with mild symptoms at follow-up. The particular type of treatment followed made no difference to clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: The added value of guideline concordant care could not be demonstrated in this study. Symptom severity, employment status, social support and comorbidity of anxiety and depression all play a role in poor clinical outcomes
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: To identify associations of patient characteristics (predisposing, enabling and need factors) with guideline-concordant care for anxiety and depression in primary care.
Analysis of data from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA).
Seven hundred and twenty-one patients with a current anxiety or depressive disorder, recruited from 67 general practitioners (GPs), were included.
Diagnoses according to the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV) were made using a structured and widely validated assessment. Socio-demographic and enabling characteristics, severity of symptoms, disability, (under treatment for) chronic somatic conditions, perceived need for care, beliefs and evaluations of care were measured by questionnaires. Actual care data were derived from electronic medical records. Criteria for guideline-concordant care were based on general practice guidelines, issued by the Dutch College of General Practitioners.
Two hundred and eighty-one (39%) patients received guideline-concordant care. High education level, accessibility of care, comorbidity of anxiety and depression, and severity and disability scores were positively associated with receiving guideline-concordant care in univariate analyses. In multivariate multi-level logistic regression models, significant associations with the clinical need factors disappeared. Positive evaluations of accessibility of care increased the chance (OR = 1.31; 95%-CI = 1.05-1.65; p = 0.02) of receiving guideline-concordant care, as well as perceiving any need for medication (OR = 2.99; 95%-CI = 1.84-4.85; p < 0.001), counseling (OR = 2.25; 95%-CI = 1.29-3.95; p = 0.005) or a referral (OR = 1.83; 95%-CI = 1.09-3.09; p = 0.02). A low educational level decreased the odds (OR = 0.33; 95%-CI = 0.11-0.98; p = 0.04) of receiving guideline-concordant care.
This study shows that education level, accessibility of care and patients' perceived needs for care are more strongly associated with the delivery of guideline-concordant care for anxiety or depression than clinical need factors. Initiatives to improve GPs' communication skills around mental health issues, and to improve recognition of people suffering from anxiety disorders, could increase the number of patients receiving treatment for depression and anxiety in primary care.
Journal of General Internal Medicine 07/2010; 25(7):648-55. DOI:10.1007/s11606-009-1216-1 · 3.42 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Research on quality of care for depressive and anxiety disorders has reported low rates of adherence to evidence-based depression and anxiety guidelines. To improve this care, we need a better understanding of the factors determining guideline adherence.
To investigate how practice- and professional-related factors are associated with adherence to these guidelines.
Cross-sectional cohort study.
A total of 665 patients with a composite interview diagnostic instrument diagnosis of depressive or anxiety disorders, and 62 general practitioners from 21 practices participated.
Actual care data were derived from electronic medical record data. The measurement of guideline adherence was based on performance indicators derived from evidence-based guidelines. Practice-, professional-, and patient-related characteristics were measured with questionnaires. The characteristics associated with guideline adherence were assessed by multivariate multilevel regression analysis.
A number of practice and professional characteristics showed a significant univariate association with guideline adherence. The multivariate multilevel analyses revealed that, after controlling for patient characteristics, higher rates of guideline adherence were associated with stronger confidence in depression identification, less perceived time limitations, and less perceived barriers for guideline implementation. These professional-related determinants differed among the overall concept of guideline adherence and the various treatment options.
This study showed that rates of adherence to guidelines on depressive and anxiety disorders were not associated with practice characteristics, but to some extent with physician characteristics. Although most of the identified professional-related determinants are very difficult to change, our results give some directions for improving depression and anxiety care.
Medical care 03/2010; 48(3):240-8. DOI:10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181ca27f6 · 3.23 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This study focused on patients in the general population whose anxiety or depressive disorder is untreated. It explored reasons for not receiving treatment and compared four groups of patients-three that did not receive treatment for different reasons (no problem perceived, no perceived need for care, and unmet need for care) and one that received treatment-regarding their predisposing, enabling, and need factors.
Cross-sectional data were used for 743 primary care patients with current anxiety or depressive disorder from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). Diagnoses were confirmed with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview. Patients' perception of the presence of a mental problem, perceived need for care, service utilization, and reasons for not receiving treatment were assessed with the Perceived Need for Care Questionnaire.
Forty-three percent of the respondents with a six-month anxiety or depression diagnosis did not receive treatment. Twenty-one percent of all respondents with depression or anxiety expressed a need for care but did not receive any. Preferring to manage the problem themselves was the most common reason for respondents to avoid seeking treatment. There were no significant differences in clinical need factors between treated patients and untreated patients with a perceived need for care. Compared with patients in the other two untreated groups, untreated patients with a perceived need for care were more hindered in regard to symptom severity, functional disability, and psychosocial functioning.
General practitioners should pay considerable attention to patients whose need for care is unmet. Furthermore, findings support the implementation of patient empowerment in mental health care in order to contribute to easily accessible and patient-centered care.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: To assess professionals' adherence to evidence-based guidelines and to investigate whether or not this is influenced by recording of the diagnosis and symptom severity.
Analysis of baseline cross-sectional data of a cohort study of 721 primary care patients with a confirmed diagnosis of a depressive or anxiety disorder. Information on the management of depressive and anxiety disorders was gathered from the electronic medical patient records. Guideline adherence was measured by an algorithm, based on performance indicators.
Forty-two percent of the patients with a depressive disorder was treated in accordance with the guideline, whereas 27% of the patients with an anxiety disorder received guideline-consistent care. The provision of care in line with current depression and anxiety guidelines was around 50% for persons with both types of disorders. Documentation of an International Classification of Primary Care diagnosis of depression or anxiety disorder appeared to have a strong influence on guideline adherence. Symptom severity, however, did not influence guideline adherence.
Adherence to depression and anxiety guidelines can be improved, even when the general practitioner makes the diagnosis and records it. Data on actual health care delivery and quality of care provide insight and may be useful in developing quality improvement activities.
General hospital psychiatry 09/2009; 31(5):460-9. DOI:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2009.05.011 · 2.61 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Many anxiety and depression patients receive no care, resulting in unnecessary suffering and high costs. Specific beliefs and the absence of a perceived need for care are major reasons for not receiving care. This study aims to determine the specific perceived need for care in primary care patients with anxiety and depression, and examine to what extent these different needs are met.
Cross-sectional data were derived from The Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). In 622 primary care patients with a current (6-month recency) diagnosis of depression and/or anxiety disorder who recognised their mental health problem themselves, the perceived need for mental health care was measured by the Perceived Need for Care Questionnaire (PNCQ). Possible determinants were measured in the same interview by means of a questionnaire.
Most patients with anxiety or depression expressed a need for counselling or information. Medication, practical support, skills training and a referral were less often perceived to be needed. Multiple logistic regression analyses revealed that after controlling for age, clinical status and disability, patients' confidence in professional help and their evaluation of received care positively influenced their perception of a need for medication and counselling.
Although no conclusions can be made about what type of care was specifically not wanted, patients with anxiety or depression mostly want to receive information and counselling. Health professionals should be aware of the fact that there are differences in perceived need for care between subgroups of patients, based on their beliefs and their evaluation of care.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Anxiety and depressive disorders are widely prevalent, but patients are only treated in a minority of cases. In this study, the explanation of receiving mental health treatment is sought in predisposing and enabling characteristics and indicators for objective and self-perceived need.
Cross-sectional analysis of data collected in the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA) among 743 persons with an anxiety and/or depression diagnosis as assessed by the CIDI. Receipt of mental health treatment was assessed in the face-to-face interview, as well as indicators of predisposing and enabling factors and variables evaluating need for care.
Of the total sample, 57% received treatment in the past 6 months in the general practice setting (50%) or the mental health care setting (14%). Younger patients, patients who evaluated their providers better on communicative abilities and patients who perceived mental health problems themselves had greater odds of having professional mental health contacts in the primary care setting. Confidence in professional help and higher severity of mental problems were associated with greater odds of having specialized mental health care.
Receiving help for common mental disorders depends not only on the objective need of the patient but also at least as much on the patients' own recognition that their problems have a mental health origin. Furthermore, in primary care especially, the patients' judgment of their providers' affective abilities may be decisive for being treated. For receiving specialized care, patients are also directed by their confidence in professional help.
General hospital psychiatry 01/2009; 31(1):46-55. DOI:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2008.09.011 · 2.61 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Patients' illness representations and beliefs about treatment for depression and anxiety, as well as their perceived needs, are important for treatment. A systematic review was conducted of 71 studies describing the beliefs or perceived needs of patients and non-patients. Patients give multi-dimensional explanations for depression and see both psychological and medication treatment as helpful. People who suffer from depression have more positive beliefs about biological etiology and medication treatment than healthy people, or those with less severe depressive symptoms. Anxiety patients view psychological interventions as their best treatment option. Between 49% and 84% of the patients with depression or anxiety perceive a need for treatment, mostly for counseling and medication. All patients prefer psychological treatment forms to medication. A majority of patients view antidepressants as addictive and many perceive stigma and see practical and economic barriers to care. The most vulnerable groups in terms of seeking and receiving mental health care for depression and anxiety seem to be minority groups, as well as younger and older patients. More research is required into the specific needs of anxiety and depression patients. Open communication between patient and provider could lead to valuable improvements in treatment.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Only a small part of anxiety and depression patients receive care for their mental disorder and even less patients receive the care they wanted. People have different needs for care, so it is important to investigate the patient’s perspective. OBJECTIVES: To explore the specific needs for care in patients with anxiety and depression and to explore in what extent these needs have been met. Identify perceived barriers to receive different forms of help. METHODS: The Perceived Need for Care Questionnaire (PNCQ) was assessed in a sample of patients who had a CIDI diagnosis of anxiety or depression in the last 6 months, who were recruited from primary care. The present study used data from the baseline interview of the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA), a multi-site cohort study to describe the long term course of depression and anxiety disorders. RESULTS: One third of patients who received counselling or skills training wanted more of it. Almost all medication needs were met. There was high unmet need for counselling and information but almost no need for practical support. Important reasons to abstain from certain services were self-reliance, pessimism about outcomes and ignorance about possible services. CONCLUSIONS: People seem to prefer talking about their problems over medical solutions. The barriers to care found in this study, can have practical implications for clinical practice as well as the community.