Search

Background: The burden and economic consequences of depression are high, mostly due to its recurrent nature. Due to current budget and time restraints, a preventive, low- cost, accessible minimal intervention is much needed. In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of a supported self-help preventive cognitive therapy (S-PCT) added to treatment as usual (TAU) in primary care, compared to TAU alone. Methods: We conducted a randomized controlled trial among 248 patients with a history of depression, currently in full or partial remission or recovery. Participants were randomized to TAU augmented with S-PCT (n = 124) or TAU alone (n = 124). S-PCT consisted of an 8-week self-help intervention, supported by weekly telephone guidance by a counselor. The intervention included a self-help book that could be read at home. The primary outcome was the incidence of relapse or recurrence and was assessed over the telephone by the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV axis 1 disorders. Participants were observed for 12 months. Secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms, quality of life (EQ-5D and SF-12), comorbid psychopathology, and self-efficacy. These secondary outcomes were assessed by digital questionnaires. Results: In the S-PCT group, 44 participants (35.5%) experienced a relapse or recurrence, compared to 62 participants (50.0%) in the TAU group (incidence rate ratio = 0.71, 95% CI 0.52-0.97; risk difference = 14, 95% CI 2-24, number needed to treat = 7). Compared to the TAU group, the S-PCT group showed a significant reduction in depressive symptoms over 12 months (mean difference -2.18; 95% CI -3.09 to -1.27) and a significant increase in quality of life (EQ-5D) (mean difference 0.04; 95% CI 0.004-0.08). S-PCT had no effect on comorbid psychopathology, self-efficacy, and quality of life based on the SF-12. Conclusions: A supported self-help preventive cognitive therapy, guided by a counselor in primary care, proved to be effective in reducing the burden of recurrent depression.

Purpose\ud \ud Given the public health significance of poorly treatable co-morbid major depressive disorders (MDD) among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) and coronary heart disease (CHD), we need to investigate whether strategies to prevent the development of major depression could reduce its burden of disease. We therefore evaluated the effectiveness of a stepped-care program for subthreshold depression in comparison with usual care in patients with DM2 and/or CHD.\ud \ud Methods\ud \ud A cluster randomized controlled trial, with 27 primary care centers serving as clusters. A total of 236 DM2 and/or CHD patients with subthreshold depression (nine item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) score ≥ 6, no current MDD according to DSM-IV criteria) were allocated to the intervention group (N = 96) or usual care group (n = 140). The stepped-care program was delivered by trained practice nurses during one year and consisted of four sequential treatment steps: watchful waiting, guided self-help, problem solving treatment and referral to the general practitioner. The primary outcome was the 12-month cumulative incidence of MDD as measured with the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI). Secondary outcomes included severity of depression (measured by PHQ-9) at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months.\ud \ud Results\ud \ud Of 236 patients (mean age, 67,5 (SD 10) years; 54.7% men), 210 (89%) completed the MINI at 12 months. The cumulative incidence of MDD was 9 of 89 (10.1%) participants in the intervention group and 12 of 121 (9.9%) participants in the usual care group. We found no statistically significant overall effect of the intervention (OR = 1.21; 95% confidence interval (0.12 to 12.41)) and there were no statistically significant differences in the course or severity of depressive symptoms between the two groups.\ud \ud Conclusions\ud \ud This study suggest that Step-Dep was not more effective in preventing MDD than usual care in a primary care population with DM2 and/or CHD and subthreshold depression.

Item does not contain fulltext OBJECTIVES: Many older adults have significant depressive symptoms but few people access care for these. This study explores which personal, clinical and need factors facilitate or hinder acceptance of a new outreaching preference-led intervention programme. METHODS: From a sample of 9661 community-dwelling 65+ year olds, 244 persons with depressive symptoms according to the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 were included. Data on programme effectiveness in terms of care utilisation were collected. Associations between programme acceptance and personal, clinical and need factors were studied using quantitative (logistic regression analyses) and qualitative methods (semi-structured interviews with 26 subjects, who accepted (n = 20) or declined (n = 6) the programme). RESULTS: Fifty-six per cent (n = 137) took part in the interventions. Quantitative logistic regression analyses showed that participants were more often female, suffered from more severe depressive symptoms and perceived more loneliness. Qualitative analyses revealed that people accepting the intervention programme felt that medical terms as having a depressed mood were applicable to their situation, more often perceived their symptoms as hindering, felt lonely and more often perceived a need for care. They were more often advised by their general practitioner to participate than individuals who refused the interventions. Many participating individuals did not see a match between the intervention programme and their needs, especially with respect to meeting new people. CONCLUSION: Many older persons with depressive symptoms did not feel the need to take part in the programme. Providing support in alleviating loneliness and further adaptation to older adults' illness representations and perceptions when discussing depressive symptoms might enhance care utilisation.

BACKGROUND: Mental health problems are common and are associated with increased disability and health care costs. Problem-Solving Treatment (PST) delivered to these patients by nurses in primary care might be efficient. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PST by mental health nurses compared with usual care (UC) by the general practitioner for primary care patients with mental health problems.METHODS: An economic evaluation from a societal perspective was performed alongside a randomized clinical trial. Patients with a positive General Health Questionnaire score (score ≥ 4) and who visited their general practitioner at least three times during the past 6 months were eligible. Outcome measures were improvement on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and QALYs based on the EQ-5D. Resource use was measured using a validated questionnaire. Missing cost and effect data were imputed using multiple imputation techniques. Bootstrapping was used to analyze costs and cost-effectiveness of PST compared with UC.RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in clinical outcomes at 9 months. Mean total costs were €4795 in the PST group and €6857 in the UC group. Costs were not statistically significantly different between the two groups (95% CI -4698;359). The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that PST was cost-effective in comparison with UC. Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings.CONCLUSIONS: PST delivered by nurses seems cost-effective in comparison with UC. However, these results should be interpreted with caution, since the difference in total costs was mainly caused by 3 outliers with extremely high indirect costs in the UC group.TRIAL REGISTRATION: Nederlands Trial Register ISRCTN51021015.