Search

Background: Anxiety and depressive disorders are increasingly being viewed as chronic conditions with fluctuating symptom levels. Relapse prevention programmes are needed to increase self-management and prevent relapse. Fine-tuning relapse prevention programmes to the needs of patients may increase uptake and effectiveness., Materials and Methods: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted amongst patients with a partially or fully remitted anxiety or depressive disorder. Patients were presented 20 choice tasks with two hypothetical treatment scenarios for relapse prevention, plus a "no treatment" option. Each treatment scenario was based on seven attributes of a hypothetical but realistic relapse prevention programme. Attributes considered professional contact frequency, treatment type, delivery mode, programme flexibility, a personal relapse prevention plan, time investment and effectiveness. Choice models were estimated to analyse the data., Results: A total of 109 patients with a partially or fully remitted anxiety or depressive disorder completed the DCE. Attributes with the strongest impact on choice were high effectiveness, regular contact with a professional, low time investment and the inclusion of a personal prevention plan. A high heterogeneity in preferences was observed, related to both clinical and demographic characteristics: for example, a higher number of previous treatment episodes was related to a preference for a higher frequency of contact with a professional, while younger age was related to a stronger preference for high effectiveness., Conclusions: This study using a DCE provides insights into preferences for a relapse prevention programme for anxiety and depressive disorders that can be used to guide the development of such a programme., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Since anxiety and depressive disorders often recur, self-management competencies are crucial for improving the long-term course of anxiety and depressive disorders. However, few relapse prevention programmes are available that focus on improving self-management. E-health combined with personal contact with a mental health professional in general practice might be a promising approach for relapse prevention. In this protocol, the GET READY (Guided E-healTh for RElapse prevention in Anxiety and Depression) study will be described in which a relapse prevention programme is developed, implemented and evaluated. The aim of the study is to determine patients' usage of the programme and the associated course of their symptoms, to examine barriers and facilitators of implementation, and to assess patients' satisfaction with the programme., Methods: Participants are discharged from mental healthcare services, and are in complete or partial remission. They receive access to an E-health platform, combined with regular contact with a mental health professional in general practices. Online questionnaires will be completed at baseline and after 3, 6 and 9 months. Also, semi-structured qualitative individual interviews and focus group interviews will be conducted with patients and mental health professionals., Discussion: This mixed-methods observational cohort study will provide insights into the use of a relapse prevention programme in relation to the occurrence of symptoms, as well as in its implementation and evaluation. Using the results of this study, the relapse prevention programme can be adapted in accordance with the needs of patients and mental health professionals. If this programme is shown to be acceptable, a randomized controlled trial may be conducted to test its efficacy., Trial Registration: Retrospectively registered in the Netherlands Trial Register ( NTR7574 ; 25 October 2018).

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.

Background: Appropriate management of anxiety disorders in primary care requires clinical assessment and monitoring of the severity of the anxiety. This study focuses on the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) as a severity indicator for anxiety in primary care patients with different anxiety disorders (social phobia, panic disorder with or without agoraphobia, agoraphobia or generalized anxiety disorder), depressive disorders or no disorder (controls)., Methods: Participants were 1601 primary care patients participating in the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). Regression analyses were used to compare the mean BAI scores of the different diagnostic groups and to correct for age and gender., Results: Patients with any anxiety disorder had a significantly higher mean score than the controls. A significantly higher score was found for patients with panic disorder and agoraphobia compared to patients with agoraphobia only or social phobia only. BAI scores in patients with an anxiety disorder with a co-morbid anxiety disorder and in patients with an anxiety disorder with a co-morbid depressive disorder were significantly higher than BAI scores in patients with an anxiety disorder alone or patients with a depressive disorder alone. Depressed and anxious patients did not differ significantly in their mean scores., Conclusions: The results suggest that the BAI may be used as a severity indicator of anxiety in primary care patients with different anxiety disorders. However, because the instrument seems to reflect the severity of depression as well, it is not a suitable instrument to discriminate between anxiety and depression in a primary care population.

Background: Taking patient preference into consideration has received increased attention in the last decades. We conducted a meta‐analysis to estimate the effects of patient preference on clinical outcome, satisfaction and adherence regarding treatment of depression and anxiety. Methods: Pubmed, Embase, PsycINFO and Scopus were searched for (cluster) randomized controlled trials. Twenty‐six randomized controlled clinical trials were included, comprising 3670 participants, examining the effect of patient preference regarding treatment of anxiety and depression on clinical outcome, satisfaction and/or adherence. Results: No effect of patient preference was found on clinical outcome [d = 0.06, 95% CI = (−0.03, 0.15), p = 0.16, n = 23 studies]. A small effect of patient preference was found on treatment satisfaction [d = 0.33, 95% CI = (0.08, 0.59), p = 0.01, n = 6 studies] and on treatment adherence [OR = 1.55, 95% CI = (1.28, 1.87), p < 0.001, n = 22 studies]. Limitations: Patient preference is a heterogeneous concept, future studies should strive to equalize operationalization of preference. Subgroup analyses within this study should be interpreted with caution because the amount of studies per analysed subgroup was generally low. Most studies included in this meta‐analysis focused on patients with depression. The small number of studies (n = 6) on satisfaction, prevents us from drawing firm conclusions. Conclusions: While this meta‐analysis did not find a positive effect of considering patient preference on clinical outcome, it was associated with slightly better treatment satisfaction and adherence. Accommodating preference of patients with anxiety and depression can improve treatment. Trial Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42020172556 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine the underlying factor structure and psychometric properties of the Assessment of Self-management in Anxiety and Depression (ASAD) questionnaire, which was specifically designed for patients with (chronic) anxiety and depressive disorders. Moreover, this study assesses whether the number of items in the ASAD can be reduced without significantly reducing its precision. Methods: The ASAD questionnaire was completed by 171 participants across two samples: one sample comprised patients with residual anxiety or depressive symptoms, while the other consisted of patients who have been formally diagnosed with a chronic anxiety or depressive disorder. All participants had previously undergone treatment. Both exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted. Internal consistency and test–retest reliability were also assessed. Results: Both EFA and CFA indicated three solid factors: Seeking support, Daily life strategies and Taking ownership [Comparative Fit Index = 0.80, Tucker Lewis Index = 0.78, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.09 (CI 0.08–1.00), Standardized Root Mean Square Residual = 0.09 (χ2 = 439.35, df = 168)]. The ASAD was thus reduced from 45 items to 21 items, which resulted in the ASAD-Short Form (SF). All sub-scales had a high level of internal consistency (> α = 0.75) and test–retest reliability (ICC > 0.75). Discussion: The first statistical evaluation of the ASAD indicated a high level of internal consistency and test–retest reliability, and identified three distinctive factors. This could aid patients and professionals' assessment of types of self-management used by the patient. Given that this study indicated that the 21-item ASAD-SF is appropriate, this version should be further explored and validated among a sample of patients with (chronic or partially remitted) anxiety and depressive disorders. Alongside this, to increase generalizability, more studies are required to examine the English version of the ASAD within other settings and countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many patients with anxiety or depressive disorders achieve no remission of their symptoms after evidence-based treatment algorithms. They develop a chronic course of the disorder. Current care for these patients usually consists of long-term supportive contacts with a community psychiatric nurse and pharmacological management by a psychiatrist. Data on the effectiveness of these treatments is lacking. A psychosocial rehabilitation approach, where self-management is an increasingly important part, could be more suitable. It focuses on the restoration of functioning and enhancement of patients' autonomy and responsibility. Treatment with this focus, followed by referral to primary care, may be more (cost-)effective. Methods: A multicenter randomized controlled trial is designed for twelve participating specialized outpatient mental health services in the Netherlands. Patients with chronic and treatment resistant anxiety or depressive disorders, currently receiving supportive care in specialized outpatient mental health care, are asked to participate. After inclusion, patients receive the baseline questionnaire and are randomized to the intervention group or the usual care control group. The intervention focuses on rehabilitation and self-management and is provided by a trained community psychiatric nurse, followed by referral to primary care. Measurements take place at 6, 12, and 18 months after baseline. This study evaluates both the effectiveness (on quality of life, symptom severity, and empowerment), and cost-effectiveness of the intervention compared to usual care. In addition, a questionnaire is designed to get insight in which self-management strategies patients use to manage their disorder, and in the experiences of patients with the change of care setting. Discussion: In this study we evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a self-management intervention for patients with chronic and treatment resistant anxiety or depressive disorders in specialized outpatient mental health care. The results of this study may provide a first 'proof-of-concept' in this under-researched but important field, and might be relevant for a large group of patients in the context of a transition of the Dutch health care system. [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]