Search

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., (© 2024 The Authors. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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: Following remission of an anxiety disorder or a depressive disorder, antidepressants are frequently discontinued and in the case of symptom occurrence reinstated. Reinstatement of antidepressants seems less effective in some patients, but an overview is lacking. This systematic review aimed to provide insight into the magnitude and risk factors of response failure after reinstatement of antidepressants in patients with anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)., Method: PubMed, Embase, and trial registers were systematically searched for studies in which patients: (1) had an anxiety disorder, a depressive disorder, OCD, or PTSD and (2) experienced failure to respond after reinstatement of a previously effective antidepressant., Results: Ten studies reported failure to respond following antidepressant reinstatement. The phenomenon was observed in 16.5% of patients with a depressive disorder, OCD, and social phobia and occurred in all common classes of antidepressants. The range of response failure was broad, varying between 3.8 and 42.9% across studies. No risk factors for failure to respond were investigated. The overall study quality was limited., Conclusion: Research investigating response failure is scarce and the study quality limited. Response failure occurred in a substantial minority of patients. Contributors to the relevance of this phenomenon are the prevalence of the investigated disorders, the number of patients being treated with antidepressants, and the occurrence of response failure for all common classes of antidepressants. This systematic review highlights the need for studies systematically investigating this phenomenon and associated risk factors., (© 2018 The Author(s) Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

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., Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register: NTR3335 , registered 7 March 2012.

Dropout from psychological or pharmacological treatment for anxiety and depressive disorders is common. It is especially problematic in adolescents and young adults because of the adverse consequences for their development. Reasons for treatment dropout can be divided into therapy-process related factors, attitudinal aspects, and practical issues. Adjusting treatment to patient preferences and shared decision making, improving the therapeutic alliance, and interventions such as (family) psychoeducation, motivational interviewing, and help with practical issues are promising strategies to optimize engagement and adherence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]