Search

Background: Due to strict time management General Practitioners (GPs) prefer short instruments when identifying suicidal behaviour in their patients. We summarize the available studies reporting diagnostic accuracy of brief instruments for suicidal behaviour in primary care. Method: Databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, PSYNDEX, and Cochrane Library were searched without any time constraints. Risk of bias and applicability concerns were assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. The certainty of evidence was rated via GRADEpro. We included studies on primary care patients or participants from the general population. Suicidal behaviour was the defined target condition. With respect to the applicability in a primary care setting we included only studies assessing brief screening instruments; a brief instrument was defined as having no more than twelve items. We assessed sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value. Results: A total of 9,969 studies was identified; of those, six fulfilled all strong criteria and were included. The range of sensitivity was 0.26-1.00, specificity was 0.64-0.99, positive predictive value 0.06-0.91, negative predictive value 0.86-1.00. Risk of bias was rated moderate and concerns regarding applicability acceptable. A required sensitivity of at least 0.80 and specificity of 0.50 with a moderate to high GRADE rating was achieved by six of nine index tests. Conclusions: Brief screening instruments can support ruling-out suicidality, but are less suitable for ruling-in. They may support GPs in an initial assessment, but in case of a positive test result, a valid diagnostic assessment should be done by a structured clinical interview.

The authors have requested that this preprint be removed from Research Square.

Item does not contain fulltext OBJECTIVE: Self-efficacy - the confidence to carry out certain behaviour in order to achieve a specific goal - has increasingly been recognized as an essential prerequisite of effective self-management of chronic diseases. Therefore, valid and reliable measures are needed to evaluate self-efficacy in both research and clinical practice. This study explored the psychometric properties of the German version of the Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease 6-Item Scale (SES6G). METHODS: We performed standardized translation and cultural adaptation of the SES6G into German. The SES6G was externally validated with the German General Self-Efficacy Scale (SWE). Cronbach's alpha, descriptive statistics and principal component analysis were used to assess psychometric properties of the SES6G. We assessed the effect of the number of co-occurring chronic diseases on SES6G scores using linear regression modelling by controlling for age, gender and education level. RESULTS: We analysed data of 244 primary care patients in Germany. The SES6G showed good convergent construct validity to the SWE (spearman rank correlation 0.578, P < 0.001) and high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.930). Principal component analysis underlined the one-dimensional structure of the instrument. Adjusted for age and gender, increasing numbers of co-occurring chronic diseases were associated with lower SES6G scores (standardized beta-value -0.27, P < 0.001). Education level showed no significant effect. CONCLUSIONS: The SES6G is a reliable and valid instrument to assess patients' self-efficacy for managing chronic diseases. It may enhance further research in German-speaking countries and appears to be a valuable measure for clinical practice.

Item does not contain fulltext Since 2002 some of the world's largest disease management programs have been launched in Germany--initially for type II diabetes and coronary heart disease--with approximately 5 million eligible insured persons and (in 2005) 2.04 million registered participants. The programs were not piloted prior to their start, and the prescribed statutory evaluation cannot be expected to result in an effectiveness validation. The article describes the development of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. It also discusses methodological problems, in particular the definition of primary target criteria, the guarantee of a 'naturalistic' intensity of intervention, and the creation of a control group during nation-wide implementation. Due to lacking support from the stakeholders the proposed randomized trial could not be implemented. Its design, however, allows the required standards for the program evaluation to be specified.

BACKGROUND: Case management by health care assistants in small primary care practices provides unclear benefit for improving depression symptoms. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether case management provided by health care assistants in small primary care practices is more effective than usual care in improving depression symptoms and process of care for patients with major depression. DESIGN: Cluster randomized, controlled trial. A central automated system generated the randomization scheme, which was stratified by urban and rural practices; allocation sequence was concealed until groups were assigned. SETTING: 74 small primary care practices in Germany from April 2005 to September 2007. PATIENTS: 626 patients age 18 to 80 years with major depression. INTERVENTION: Structured telephone interview to monitor depression symptoms and support for adherence to medication, with feedback to the family physician. MEASUREMENTS: Depression symptoms at 12 months, as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9); secondary outcomes were patient assessment of chronic illness care, adherence to medication, and quality of life. RESULTS: A total of 310 patients were randomly assigned to case management and 316 to usual care. At 12 months, 249 intervention recipients and 278 control patients were assessed; 555 patients were included in a modified intention-to-treat-analysis (267 intervention recipients vs. 288 control patients). Compared with control patients, intervention recipients had lower mean PHQ-9 values in depression symptoms (-1.41 [95% CI, -2.49 to -0.33]; P = 0.014), more favorable assessments of care (3.41 vs. 3.11; P = 0.011), and increased treatment adherence (2.70 vs. 2.53; P = 0.042). Quality-of-life scores did not differ between groups. LIMITATION: Patients, health care assistants, family physicians, and researchers were not blinded to group assignment, and 12-month follow-up of patients was incomplete. CONCLUSION: Case management provided by primary care practice-based health care assistants may reduce depression symptoms and improve process of care for patients with major depression more than usual care. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: German Ministry of Education and Research.