Search

Abstract Background Major depressive disorder (MDD) has major consequences for both patients and society, particularly in terms of needlessly long sick leave and reduced functioning. Although evidence-based treatments for MDD are available, they show disappointing results when implemented in daily practice. A focus on work is also lacking in the treatment of depressive disorder as well as communication of general practitioners (GPs) and other health care professionals with occupational physicians (OPs). The OP may play a more important role in the recovery of patients with MDD. Purpose of the present study is to tackle these obstacles by applying a collaborative care model, which has proven to be effective in the USA, with a focus on return to work (RTW). From a societal perspective, the (cost)effectiveness of this collaborative care treatment, as a way of transmural care, will be evaluated in depressed patients on sick leave in the occupational health setting. Methods/Design A randomised controlled trial in which the treatment of MDD in the occupational health setting will be evaluated in the Netherlands. A transmural collaborative care model, including Problem Solving Treatment (PST), a workplace intervention, antidepressant medication and manual guided self-help will be compared with care as usual (CAU). 126 Patients with MDD on sick leave between 4 and 12 weeks will be included in the study. Care in the intervention group will be provided by a multidisciplinary team of a trained OP-care manager and a consultant psychiatrist. The treatment is separated from the sickness certification. Data will be collected by means of questionnaires at baseline and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after baseline. Primary outcome measure is reduction of depressive symptoms, secondary outcome measure is time to RTW, tertiary outcome measure is the cost effectiveness. Discussion The high burden of MDD and the high level of sickness absence among people with MDD contribute to the relevance of this study. The intervention is an innovative approach, with trained OPs in a new role as care managers in the treatment of MDD. If this intervention proves to be cost-effective, implementation will be very relevant for individual patients as well as for society. Trial registration ISRCTN78462860

Abstract Background Depressive disorder is currently one of the most burdensome disorders worldwide. Evidence-based treatments for depressive disorder are already available, but these are used insufficiently, and with less positive results than possible. Earlier research in the USA has shown good results in the treatment of depressive disorder based on a collaborative care approach with Problem Solving Treatment and an antidepressant treatment algorithm, and research in the UK has also shown good results with Problem Solving Treatment. These treatment strategies may also work very well in the Netherlands too, even though health care systems differ between countries. Methods/design This study is a two-armed randomised clinical trial, with randomization on patient-level. The aim of the trial is to evaluate the treatment of depressive disorder in primary care in the Netherlands by means of an adapted collaborative care framework, including contracting and adherence-improving strategies, combined with Problem Solving Treatment and antidepressant medication according to a treatment algorithm. Forty general practices will be randomised to either the intervention group or the control group. Included will be patients who are diagnosed with moderate to severe depression, based on DSM-IV criteria, and stratified according to comorbid chronic physical illness. Patients in the intervention group will receive treatment based on the collaborative care approach, and patients in the control group will receive care as usual. Baseline measurements and follow up measures (3, 6, 9 and 12 months) are assessed using questionnaires and an interview. The primary outcome measure is severity of depressive symptoms, according to the PHQ9. Secondary outcome measures are remission as measured with the PHQ9 and the IDS-SR, and cost-effectiveness measured with the TiC-P, the EQ-5D and the SF-36. Discussion In this study, an American model to enhance care for patients with a depressive disorder, the collaborative care model, will be evaluated for effectiveness in the primary care setting. If effective across the Atlantic and across different health care systems, it is also likely to be an effective strategy to implement in the treatment of major depressive disorder in the Netherlands.

Abstract Background Depressive disorder is one of the most common disorders, and is highly prevalent in chronically ill patients. The presence of comorbid depression has a negative influence on quality of life, health care costs, self-care, morbidity, and mortality. Early diagnosis and well-organized treatment of depression has a positive influence on these aspects. Earlier research in the USA has reported good results with regard to the treatment of depression with a collaborative care approach and an antidepressant algorithm. In the UK 'Problem Solving Treatment' has proved to be feasible. However, in the general hospital setting this approach has not yet been evaluated. Methods/Design CC: DIM (Collaborative Care: Depression Initiative in the Medical setting) is a two-armed randomised controlled trial with randomisation at patient level. The aim of the trial is to evaluate the treatment of depressive disorder in general hospitals in the Netherlands based on a collaborative care framework, including contracting, 'Problem Solving Treatment', antidepressant algorithm, and manual-guided self-help. 126 outpatients with diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or cardiovascular diseases will be randomised to either the intervention group or the control group. Patients will be included if they have been diagnosed with moderate to severe depression, based on the DSM-IV criteria in a two-step screening method. The intervention group will receive treatment based on the collaborative care approach; the control group will receive 'care as usual'. Baseline and follow-up measurements (after 3, 6, 9, and 12 months) will be performed by means of questionnaires. The primary outcome measure is severity of depressive symptoms, as measured with the PHQ-9. The secondary outcome measure is the cost-effectiveness of these treatments according to the TiC-P, the EuroQol and the SF-36. Discussion Earlier research has indicated that depressive disorder is a chronic, mostly recurrent illness, which tends to cluster with physical comorbidity. Even though the treatment of depressive disorder based on the guidelines for depression is proven effective, these guidelines are often insufficiently adhered to. Collaborative care and 'Problem Solving Treatment' will be specifically tailored to patients with depressive disorders and evaluated in a general hospital setting in the Netherlands.

Background: For the treatment of depression in diabetes patients, it is important that depression is recognized at an early stage. A screening method for depression is the patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9). The aim of this study is to validate the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) as a screening instrument for depression in diabetes patients in outpatient clinics. Methods: 197 diabetes patients from outpatient clinics in the Netherlands filled in the PHQ-9. Within 2 weeks they were approached for an interview with the Mini Neuropsychiatric Interview. DSM-IV diagnoses of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) were the criterion for which the sensitivity, specificity, positive- and negative predictive values and Receiver Operator Curves (ROC) for the PHQ-9 were calculated. Results: The cut-off point of a summed score of 12 on the PHQ-9 resulted in a sensitivity of 75.7% and a specificity of 80.0%. Predictive values for negative and positive test results were respectively 93.4% and 46.7%. The ROC showed an area under the curve of 0.77. Conclusions: The PHQ-9 proved to be an efficient and well-received screening instrument for MDD in this sample of diabetes patients in a specialized outpatient clinic. The higher cut-off point of 12 that was needed and somewhat lower sensitivity than had been reported elsewhere may be due to the fact that the patients from a specialized diabetes clinic have more severe pathology and more complications, which could be recognized by the PHQ-9 as depression symptoms, while instead being diabetes symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Estimating the probability of pregnancy leading to delivery and the influence of clinical factors on that probability is of fundamental importance in the treatment counselling of infertile couples. A variety of statistical techniques have been used to analyse fertility data, many borrowed from survival analysis.Methods and Results: We propose an alternative method of analysis which is based on a discrete time Markov chain approach, with states 'pregnancy (leading to a delivery)', 'not pregnant', and 'censored' and in which the transition probabilities are dependent both on the clinical characteristics of the patient and the treatment given.Conclusions: We believe that the method of analysis presented here may be preferable to standard analyses in that it better reflects the clinical situation, it is a truly discrete time analysis applied to a discrete time situation, it explicitly models the censoring process (a process which in itself provides information of interest to the physician) and can be readily extended to a variety of clinical situations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A commonly held view of the decision rule in economic evaluations in health care is that the final incremental cost-effectiveness ratio needs to be judged against some threshold, which is equal for all quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains. This reflects the assumption that "a QALY is a QALY" no matter who receives it, or the equity notion that all QALY gains are equally valuable, regardless of the context in which they are realized. If such an assumption does not adequately reflect the distributional concerns in society, however, different thresholds could be used for different QALY gains, whose relative values can be seen as "equity weights.", Aim: Our aim was to explore the relationship between equity or distributional concerns and the social value of QALYs within the health economics literature. In light of the empirical interest in equity-related concerns as well as the nature and height of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio threshold, this study investigates the "common ground" between the two streams of literature and considers how the empirical literature estimating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio threshold treats existing distributional considerations., (Copyright © 2012 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Prevention of unhealthy lifestyles has sometimes been promoted as simultaneously reducing costs and improving public health but this will unlikely prove to be true. Additional medical costs in life years gained due to treatment of unrelated diseases may offset possible savings in related diseases, but are often ignored both in health promotion policies and in economic evaluations of life-prolonging interventions. Many national guidelines explicitly recommend excluding these costs from economic evaluations or leave inclusion up to the discretion of the analyst. This may result in too favorable estimations of cost-effectiveness, feeding the unjustified optimism among policymakers regarding lifestyle interventions as a cost-saving option. However, prevention may still be a cost-effective way to improve public health, even when it does not result in cost savings, but this should be judged taking all future costs into account and be based on the true value for money provided by lifestyle interventions.

Background: The effectiveness of collaborative care for patients with major depressive disorder in primary care has been established. Assessing its cost-effectiveness is important for deciding on implementation. This review therefore evaluates the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for major depressive disorder in primary care., Methods: A systematic search on economic evaluations of collaborative care was conducted in Pubmed and PsychInfo. Quality of the studies was measured with the Cochrane checklist and the CHEC-list for economic evaluations. Cost-effectiveness and costs per depression-free days were reported., Results: 8 studies were found, involving 4868 patients. The quality of the cost effectiveness studies, according to the CHEC-list, could be improved. Generally, the studies did not include all relevant costs and did not perform sensitivity analysis. Only 4 out of 8 studies reported cost per QALY, 6 out of 8 reported costs per depression-free days. The highest costs per QALY reported were $49,500, the highest costs per depression-free day were $24., Conclusions: Although studies did not fulfil all criteria of the CHEC-list, collaborative care is a promising intervention and it may be cost-effective. However, to conclude on the cost-effectiveness, depression research should follow economic guidelines to improve the quality of the economic evaluations.

This article provides a broad outline of developments in the Dutch health-care policy related to the costs, budgeting, and reimbursement of pharmaceuticals. In-hospital drugs costs are part of hospital budgets, whereas for the main part of costs, nonhospital drugs, no strict budget exists. The government sets a goal for the annual cost increase of nonhospital drugs, but has only limited means to enforce that goal. Two measures were implemented to reduce drug prices: a reference price system and a price law. Both measures had a modest and temporary impact on drug prices during the 1990s. In limiting the utilization of drugs, the package of reimbursed drugs has been restricted. This led to a shift from public to private costs and possible substitution of cheaper not reimbursed drugs by more expensive reimbursed drugs. An electronic prescription system was implemented to encourage rational prescription. Although 70% of the Dutch general practitioners reported to use the system, the estimated savings on drug costs appear to be modest and far less than expected. The use of economic evaluation for reimbursement decisions will increase. From 2005 onward a pharmacoeconomic study and budget impact analysis is formally required for new nonclustered drugs seeking a premium price. Furthermore, in the future the health-care insurers will get a more prominent role in limiting the costs of drugs and enhancing the efficient use of drugs within their overall budgets. Health-care insurers may choose which drugs to purchase and reimburse and they can negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry, wholesalers, and local pharmacists.