Search

Background: Major depression is the leading cause of non-fatal disease burden. Because major depression is not a homogeneous condition, this study estimated the non-fatal disease burden for mild, moderate and severe depression in both single episode and recurrent depression. All estimates were assessed from an individual and a population perspective and presented as unadjusted, raw estimates and as estimates adjusted for comorbidity. Methods: We used data from the first wave of the second Netherlands-Mental-Health-Survey-and-Incidence-Study (NEMESIS-2, n = 6646; single episode Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM)-IV depression, n = 115; recurrent depression, n = 246). Disease burden from an individual perspective was assessed as 'disability weight * time spent in depression' for each person in the dataset. From a population perspective it was assessed as 'disability weight * time spent in depression *number of people affected'. The presence of mental disorders was assessed with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) 3.0. Results: Single depressive episodes emerged as a key driver of disease burden from an individual perspective. From a population perspective, recurrent depressions emerged as a key driver. These findings remained unaltered after adjusting for comorbidity. Conclusions: The burden of disease differs between the subtype of depression and depends much on the choice of perspective. The distinction between an individual and a population perspective may help to avoid misunderstandings between policy makers and clinicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Studies suggest that poor physical health might be associated with increased depression and anxiety recurrence. The objectives of this study were to determine whether specific chronic diseases and pain characteristics are associated with depression and anxiety recurrence and to examine whether such associations are mediated by subthreshold depressive or anxiety symptoms. Methods 1122 individuals with remitted depressive or anxiety disorder (Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety) were followed up for a period of four years. The impact of specific chronic diseases and pain characteristics on recurrence was assessed using Cox regression and mediation analyses. Results Chronic diseases were not associated with recurrence. Neck (HR 1.45, p < .01), chest (HR 1.65, p < .01), abdominal (HR 1.52, p < .01) pain, an increase in the number of pain locations (HR 1.10, p < .01) and pain severity (HR 1.18, p = .01) were associated with an increased risk of depression recurrence but not anxiety. Subthreshold depressive symptoms mediated the associations between pain and depression recurrence. Conclusions Pain, not chronic disease, increases the likelihood of depression recurrence, largely through its association with aggravated subthreshold depressive symptoms . These findings support the idea of the existence of a mutually reinforcing mechanism between pain and depression and are indicative of the importance of shedding light on neurobiological links in order to optimize pain and depression management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Anxiety scales may help primary care physicians to detect specific anxiety disorders among the many emotionally distressed patients presenting in primary care. The anxiety scale of the Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) consists of an admixture of symptoms of specific anxiety disorders. The research questions were: (1) Is the anxiety scale unidimensional or multidimensional? (2) To what extent does the anxiety scale detect specific DSM-IV anxiety disorders? (3) Which cut-off points are suitable to rule out or to rule in (which) anxiety disorders? Methods We analyzed 5 primary care datasets with standardized psychiatric diagnoses and 4DSQ scores. Unidimensionality was assessed through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). We examined mean scores and anxiety score distributions per disorder. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to determine optimal cut-off points. Results Total n was 969. CFA supported unidimensionality. The anxiety scale performed slightly better in detecting patients with panic disorder, agoraphobia, social phobia, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) than patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and specific phobia. ROC-analysis suggested that ≥4 was the optimal cut-off point to rule out and ≥10 the cut-off point to rule in anxiety disorders. Conclusions The 4DSQ anxiety scale measures a common trait of pathological anxiety that is characteristic of anxiety disorders, in particular panic disorder, agoraphobia, social phobia, OCD and PTSD. The anxiety score detects the latter anxiety disorders to a slightly greater extent than GAD and specific phobia, without being able to distinguish between the different anxiety disorder types. The cut-off points ≥4 and ≥10 can be used to separate distressed patients in three groups with a relatively low, moderate and high probability of having one or more anxiety disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Questionnaires may help in detecting and diagnosing anxiety disorders in primary care. However, since utility of these questionnaires in target populations is rarely studied, the Patient Health Questionnaire anxiety modules (PHQ) were evaluated for use as: a) a screener in high-risk patients, and/or b) a case finder for general practitioners (GPs) to assist in diagnosing anxiety disorders. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis was performed in 43 primary care practices in the Netherlands. The added value of the PHQ was assessed in two samples: 1) 170 patients at risk of anxiety disorders (or developing them) according to their electronic medical records (high-risk sample); 2) 141 patients identified as a possible 'anxiety case' by a GP (GP-identified sample). All patients completed the PHQ and were interviewed using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric interview to classify DSM-IV anxiety disorders. Psychometric properties were calculated, and a logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the diagnostic value of the PHQ. Results: Using only the screening questions of the PHQ, the area under the curve was 83% in the high-risk sample. In GP-identified patients the official algorithm showed the best characteristics with an area under the curve of 77%. Positive screening questions significantly increased the odds of an anxiety disorder diagnosis in high-risk patients (odds ratio = 23.4; 95% confidence interval 6.9 to 78.8) as did a positive algorithm in GP-identified patients (odds ratio = 13.9; 95% confidence interval 3.8 to 50.6). Conclusions: The PHQ screening questions can be used to screen for anxiety disorders in high-risk primary care patients. In GP-identified patients, the benefit of the PHQ is less evident. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The comorbidity of pain and depression is associated with high disease burden for patients in terms of disability, wellbeing, and use of medical care. Patients with major and minor depression often present themselves with pain to a general practitioner and recognition of depression in such cases is low, but evolving. Also, physical symptoms, including pain, in major depressive disorder, predict a poorer response to treatment. A multi-faceted, patient-tailored treatment programme, like collaborative care, is promising. However, treatment of chronic pain conditions in depressive patients has, so far, received limited attention in research. Cost effectiveness of an integrated approach of pain in depressed patients has not been studied. This article describes the aims and design of a study to evaluate effects and costs of collaborative care with the antidepressant duloxetine for patients with pain symptoms and a depressive disorder, compared to collaborative care with placebo and compared to duloxetine alone. Methods/Design: This study is a placebo controlled double blind, three armed randomized multi centre trial. Patients with (sub)chronic pain and a depressive disorder are randomized to either a) collaborative care with duloxetine, b) collaborative care with placebo or c) duloxetine alone. 189 completers are needed to attain sufficient power to show a clinically significant effect of 0.6 SD on the primary outcome measures (PHQ-9 score). Data on depression, anxiety, mental and physical health, medication adherence, medication tolerability, quality of life, patient-doctor relationship, coping, health resource use and productivity will be collected at baseline and after three, six, nine and twelve months. In the collaborative care conditions a) and b), a care-manager provides Problem Solving Treatment and integrated symptom management guidance with a self-help manual, monitors depressive and pain symptoms, and refers patients to a physiotherapist for treatment according to a 'Graded Activity' protocol. A psychiatrist provides duloxetine or placebo and pain medication according to algorithms, and also monitors pain and depressive symptoms. In condition c), the psychiatrist prescribes duloxetine without collaborative care. After 12 weeks, the patient is referred back to the general practitioner with a consultation letter, with information for further treatment of the patient. Discussion: This study enables us to show the value of a closely monitored integrated treatment model above usual pharmacological treatment. Furthermore, a comparison with a placebo arm enables us to evaluate effectiveness of duloxetine in this population in a real life setting. Also, this study will provide evidence-based treatments and tools for their implementation in practice. This will facilitate generalization and implementation of results of this study. Moreover, patients included in this study are screened for pain symptoms, differentiating between nociceptive and neuropathic pain. Therefore, pain relief can be thoroughly evaluated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Co-morbid major depression is a significant problem among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and/or coronary heart disease and this negatively impacts quality of life. Subthreshold depression is the most important risk factor for the development of major depression. Given the highly significant association between depression and adverse health outcomes and the limited capacity for depression treatment in primary care, there is an urgent need for interventions that successfully prevent the transition from subthreshold depression into a major depressive disorder. Nurse led stepped-care is a promising way to accomplish this. The aim of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a nurse-led indicated stepped-care program to prevent major depression among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and/or coronary heart disease in primary care who also have subthreshold depressive symptoms. Methods/design: An economic evaluation will be conducted alongside a cluster-randomized controlled trial in approximately thirty general practices in the Netherlands. Randomization takes place at the level of participating practice nurses. We aim to include 236 participants who will either receive a nurse-led indicated stepped-care program for depressive symptoms or care as usual. The stepped-care program consists of four sequential but flexible treatment steps: 1) watchful waiting, 2) guided self-help treatment, 3) problem solving treatment and 4) referral to the general practitioner. The primary clinical outcome measure is the cumulative incidence of major depressive disorder as measured with the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview. Secondary outcomes include severity of depressive symptoms, quality of life, anxiety and physical outcomes. Costs will be measured from a societal perspective and include health care utilization, medication and lost productivity costs. Measurements will be performed at baseline and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Discussion: The intervention being investigated is expected to prevent new cases of depression among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus and/or coronary heart disease and subthreshold depression, with subsequent beneficial effects on quality of life, clinical outcomes and health care costs. When proven cost-effective, the program provides a viable treatment option in the Dutch primary care system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Little is known about the course and outcome of untreated anxiety and depression in patients with and without a self-perceived need for care. The aim of the present study was to examine the one-year course of untreated anxiety and depression, and to determine predictors of a poor outcome. Method: Baseline and one-year follow-up data were used of 594 primary care patients with current anxiety or depressive disorders at baseline (established by the Composite Interview Diagnostic Instrument (CIDI)), from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). Receipt of and need for care were assessed by the Perceived Need for Care Questionnaire (PNCQ). Results: In depression, treated and untreated patients with a perceived treatment need showed more rapid symptom decline but greater symptom severity at follow-up than untreated patients without a self-perceived mental problem or treatment need. A lower education level, lower income, unemployment, loneliness, less social support, perceived need for care, number of somatic disorders, a comorbid anxiety and depressive disorder and symptom severity at baseline predicted a poorer outcome in both anxiety and depression. When all variables were considered at the same time, only baseline symptom severity appeared to predict a poorer outcome in anxiety. In depression, a poorer outcome was also predicted by more loneliness and a comorbid anxiety and depressive disorder. Conclusion: In clinical practice, special attention should be paid to exploring the need for care among possible risk groups (e.g. low social economic status, low social support), and support them in making an informed decision on whether or not to seek treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) is a self-report questionnaire that has been developed in primary care to distinguish non-specific general distress from depression, anxiety and somatization. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate its criterion and construct validity. Methods: Data from 10 different primary care studies have been used. Criterion validity was assessed by comparing the 4DSQ scores with clinical diagnoses, the GPs' diagnosis of any psychosocial problem for Distress, standardised psychiatric diagnoses for Depression and Anxiety, and GPs' suspicion of somatization for Somatization. ROC analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to examine the associations. Construct validity was evaluated by investigating the inter-correlations between the scales, the factorial structure, the associations with other symptom questionnaires, and the associations with stress, personality and social functioning. The factorial structure of the 4DSQ was assessed through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The associations with other questionnaires were assessed with Pearson correlations and regression analyses. Results: Regarding criterion validity, the Distress scale was associated with any psychosocial diagnosis (area under the ROC curve [AUC] 0.79), the Depression scale was associated with major depression (AUC = 0.83), the Anxiety scale was associated with anxiety disorder (AUC = 0.66), and the Somatization scale was associated with the GPs' suspicion of somatization (AUC = 0.65). Regarding the construct validity, the 4DSQ scales appeared to have considerable intercorrelations (r = 0.35-0.71). However, 30-40% of the variance of each scale was unique for that scale. CFA confirmed the 4-factor structure with a comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.92. The 4DSQ scales correlated with most other questionnaires measuring corresponding constructs. However, the 4DSQ Distress scale appeared to correlate with some other depression scales more than the 4DSQ Depression scale. Measures of stress (i.e. life events, psychosocial problems, and work stress) were mainly associated with Distress, while Distress, in turn, was mainly associated with psychosocial dysfunctioning, including sick leave. Conclusion: The 4DSQ seems to be a valid self-report questionnaire to measure distress, depression, anxiety and somatization in primary care patients. The 4DSQ Distress scale appears to measure the most general, most common, expression of psychological problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]