Search

Background: Up to a third of patients presenting medically unexplained physical symptoms in primary care may have a somatoform disorder, of which undifferentiated somatoform disorder (USD) is the most common type. Psychological interventions can reduce symptoms associated with USD and improve functioning. Previous research has either been conducted in secondary care or interventions have been provided by general practitioners (GPs) or psychologists in primary care. As efficiency and cost-effectiveness are imperative in primary care, it is important to investigate whether nurse-led interventions are effective as well. The aim of this study is to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a short cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)-based treatment for patients with USD provided by mental health nurse practitioners (MHNPs), compared to usual care.Methods: In a cluster randomised controlled trial, 212 adult patients with USD will be assigned to the intervention or care as usual. The intervention group will be offered a short, individual CBT-based treatment by the MHNP in addition to usual GP care. The main goal of the intervention is that patients become less impaired by their physical symptoms and cope with symptoms in a more effective way. In six sessions patients will receive problem-solving treatment. The primary outcome is improvement in physical functioning, measured by the physical component summary score of the RAND-36. Secondary outcomes include health-related quality of life measured by the separate subscales of the RAND-36, somatization (PHQ-15) and symptoms of depression and anxiety (HADS). Problem-solving skills, health anxiety, illness perceptions, coping, mastery and working alliance will be assessed as potential mediators. Assessments will be done at 0, 2, 4, 8 and 12 months. An economic evaluation will be conducted from a societal perspective with quality of life as the primary outcome measure assessed by the EQ-5D-5L. Health care, patient and lost productivity costs will be assessed with the Tic-P.Discussion: We expect that the intervention will improve physical functioning and is cost-effective compared to usual care. If so, more patients might successfully be treated in general practice, decreasing the number of referrals to specialist care.Trial Registration: Dutch Trial Registry, identifier: NTR4686 , Registered on 14 July 2014. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Depression is common in patients with diabetes type 2 (DM2) and/or coronary heart disease (CHD), with high personal and societal burden and may even be preventable. Recently, a cluster randomized trial of stepped care to prevent depression among patients with DM2 and/or CHD and subthreshold depression in Dutch primary care (Step-Dep) versus usual care showed no effectiveness. This paper presents its process evaluation, exploring in-depth experiences from a patient and practice nurse perspective to further understand the results. Methods: A qualitative study was conducted. Using a purposive sampling strategy, data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 24 participants (15 patients and nine practice nurses). All interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Atlas.ti 5.7.1 software was used for coding and structuring of themes. A thematic analysis of the data was performed. Results: The process evaluation showed, even through a negative trial, that Step-Dep was perceived as valuable by both patients and practice nurses; perceived effectiveness on improving depressive symptoms varied greatly, but most felt that it had been beneficial for patients' well-being. Facilitators were: increased awareness of mental health problems in chronic disease management and improved accessibility and decreased experienced stigma of receiving mental health care. The Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9), used to determine depression severity, functioned as a useful starting point for the conversation on mental health and patients gained more insight into their mental health by regularly filling out the PHQ-9. However, patients and practice nurses did not widely support its use for monitoring depressive symptoms or making treatment decisions. Monitoring mental health was deemed important in chronically ill patients by both patients and practice nurses and was suggested to start at the time of diagnosis of a chronic disease. Appointed barriers were that patients were primarily motivated to participate in scientific research rather than their intrinsic need to improve depressive symptoms. Additionally, various practice nurses preferred offering individually based therapy over pre-determined interventions in a protocolled sequence and somatic practice nurses expressed a lack of competence to recognise and treat mental health problems. Conclusion: This study demonstrates both the benefits and unique demands of programs such as Step-Dep. The appointed facilitators and barriers could guide the development of future studies aiming to prevent depression in similar patient groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Antidepressant use is often prolonged in patients with anxiety and/or depressive disorder(s) compared with recommendations in treatment guidelines to discontinue after sustained remission.Aim: To unravel the motivations of patients and GPs causing long-term antidepressant use and to gain insight into possibilities to prevent unnecessary long-term use.Design and Setting: Qualitative study using semi-structured, in-depth interviews with patients and GPs in the Netherlands.Method: Patients with anxiety and/or depressive disorder(s) (n = 38) and GPs (n = 26) were interviewed. Innovatively, the interplay between patients and their GPs was also investigated by means of patient-GP dyads (n = 20).Results: The motives and barriers of patients and GPs to continue or discontinue antidepressants were related to the availability of supportive guidance during discontinuation, the personal circumstances of the patient, and considerations of the patient or GP. Importantly, dyads indicated a large variation in policies of general practices around long-term use and continuation or discontinuation of antidepressants. Dyads further indicated that patients and GPs seemed unaware of each other's (mismatching) expectations regarding responsibility to initiate discussing continuation or discontinuation.Conclusion: Although motives and barriers to antidepressant continuation or discontinuation were related to the same themes for patients and GPs, dyads indicated discrepancies between them. Discussion between patients and GPs about antidepressant use and continuation or discontinuation may help clarify mutual expectations and opinions. Agreements between a patient and their GP can be included in a patient-tailored treatment plan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Studies evaluating collaborative care for anxiety disorders are recently emerging. A systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the effect of collaborative care for adult patients with anxiety disorders in primary care is therefore warranted. Methods: A literature search was performed. Data sources: PubMed, Psycinfo, Embase, Cinahl, and the Cochrane library. Study eligibility criteria: Randomized controlled trials examining the effects of collaborative care for adult primary care patients with an anxiety disorder, compared to care as usual or another intervention. Synthesis methods: Standardized mean differences (SMD) on an anxiety scale closest to twelve months follow-up were calculated and pooled in a random effects meta-analysis. Results: Of the 3073 studies found, seven studies were included with a total of 2105 participants. Included studies were of moderate to high quality. Collaborative care was superior to care as usual, with a small effect size (SMD = 0.35 95 % CI 0.14-0.56) for all anxiety disorders combined and a moderate effect size (SMD = 0.59, 95 % CI 0.41-0.78) in a subgroup analysis (five studies) on patients with panic disorder. Conclusions: Collaborative care seems to be a promising strategy for improving primary care for anxiety disorders, in particular panic disorder. However, the number of studies is still small and further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness in other anxiety disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this review is to critically appraise the evidence on measurement properties of self-report questionnaires measuring somatization in adult primary care patients and to provide recommendations about which questionnaires are most useful for this purpose.Methods: We assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. To draw overall conclusions about the quality of the questionnaires, we conducted an evidence synthesis using predefined criteria for judging the measurement properties.Results: We found 24 articles on 9 questionnaires. Studies on the Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15) and the Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) somatization subscale prevailed and covered the broadest range of measurement properties. These questionnaires had the best internal consistency, test-retest reliability, structural validity, and construct validity. The PHQ-15 also had good criterion validity, whereas the 4DSQ somatization subscale was validated in several languages. The Bodily Distress Syndrome (BDS) checklist had good internal consistency and structural validity. Some evidence was found for good construct validity and criterion validity of the Physical Symptom Checklist (PSC-51) and good construct validity of the Symptom Check-List (SCL-90-R) somatization subscale. However, these three questionnaires were only studied in a small number of primary care studies.Conclusion: Based on our findings, we recommend the use of either the PHQ-15 or 4DSQ somatization subscale for somatization in primary care. Other questionnaires, such as the BDS checklist, PSC-51 and the SCL-90-R somatization subscale show promising results but have not been studied extensively in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]