Search

Background: Comorbid depression is common in patients with type 2 diabetes (DM2) and/or coronary heart disease (CHD) and is associated with poor quality of life and adverse health outcomes. However, little is known about patients' and practice nurses' (PNs) perceptions of depression. Tailoring care to these perceptions may affect depression detection and patient engagement with treatment and prevention programs. This study aimed to explore patients' and PNs' perceptions of depression in patients with DM2/CHD screened for subthreshold depression., Methods: A qualitative study was conducted as part of a Dutch stepped-care prevention project. Using a purposive sampling strategy, data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 15 patients and 9 PNs. After consent, all interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed independently by two researchers with Atlas.ti.5.7.1 software. The patient and PN datasets were inspected for commonalities using a constant comparative method, from which a final thematic framework was generated., Results: Main themes were: illness perception, need for care and causes of depression. Patients generally considered themselves at least mildly depressed, but perceived severity levels were not always congruent with Patient Health Questionnaire 9 scores at inclusion. Initially recognizing or naming their mental state as a (subthreshold) depression was difficult for some. Having trouble sleeping was frequently experienced as the most burdensome symptom. Most experienced a need for care; psycho-educational advice and talking therapy were preferred. Perceived symptom severity corresponded with perceived need for care, but did not necessarily match help-seeking behaviour. Main named barriers to help-seeking were experienced stigma and lack of awareness of depression and mental health care possibilities. PNs frequently perceived patients as not depressed and with minimal need for specific care except for attention. Participants pointed to a mix of causes of depression, most related to negative life events and circumstances and perceived indirect links with DM2/CHD., Conclusion: Data of the interviewed patients and PNs suggest that they have different perceptions about (subthreshold) depressive illness and the need for care, although views on its causes seem to overlap more.

Background: The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) is originally a Dutch 50 item questionnaire developed in primary care to assess distress, depression, anxiety and somatization. We aimed to develop and validate a Turkish translation of the 4DSQ., Methods: The questionnaire was translated using forward and backward translation, and pilot testing. Turkish 4DSQ-data were collected in 352 consecutive adult primary care patients. For comparison, gender and age matched Dutch reference data were drawn from a larger existing dataset. We used differential item and test functioning (DIF and DTF) analysis to validate the Turkish translation to the original Dutch questionnaire. Through additional inquiry we tried to obtain more insight in the background of DIF in some items., Results: Twenty-one items displayed DIF but this impacted only the distress and depression scores. Inquiry among Turkish people revealed that the reason for DTF in the distress scale was probably related to unfavourable socio-economic circumstances. On the other hand, the likely explanation for DTF in the depression scale appeared to be grounded in culturally and religiously determined optimistic beliefs. Raising the distress cut-offs by 2 points and lowering the depression cut-offs by 1 point ensures that individual Turkish 4DSQ scores be correctly interpreted., Conclusions: The Turkish translation of the 4DSQ (named: "Dört-Boyutlu Yakınma Listesi", 4BYL) measures the same constructs as the original Dutch questionnaire. Turkish anxiety and somatization scores can be interpreted in the same way as Dutch scores. However, when interpreting Turkish distress and depression scores, DTF should be taken into account.

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.