Search

Background: In the predictD-intervention, GPs used a personalised biopsychosocial programme to prevent depression. This reduced the incidence of major depression by 21.0%, although the results were not statistically significant.Aim: To determine whether the predictD-intervention is effective at preventing anxiety in primary care patients without depression or anxiety.Design and Setting: Secondary study of a cluster randomised trial with practices randomly assigned to either the predictD-intervention or usual care. This study was conducted in seven Spanish cities from October 2010 to July 2012.Method: In each city, 10 practices and two GPs per practice, as well as four to six patients every recruiting day, were randomly selected until there were 26-27 eligible patients for each GP. The endpoint was cumulative incidence of anxiety as measured by the PRIME-MD screening tool over 18 months.Results: A total of 3326 patients without depression and 140 GPs from 70 practices consented and were eligible to participate; 328 of these patients were removed because they had an anxiety syndrome at baseline. Of the 2998 valid patients, 2597 (86.6%) were evaluated at the end of the study. At 18 months, 10.4% (95% CI = 8.7% to 12.1%) of the patients in the predictD-intervention group developed anxiety compared with 13.1% (95% CI = 11.4% to 14.8%) in the usual-care group (absolute difference = -2.7% [95% CI = -5.1% to -0.3%]; P = 0.029).Conclusion: A personalised intervention delivered by GPs for the prevention of depression provided a modest but statistically significant reduction in the incidence of anxiety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The predictD intervention, a multicomponent intervention delivered by family physicians (FPs), reduced the incidence of major depression by 21% versus the control group and was cost-effective. A qualitative methodology was proposed to identify the mechanisms of action of these complex interventions. Purpose: To seek the opinions of these FPs on the potential successful components of the predictD intervention for the primary prevention of depression in primary care and to identify areas for improvement. Method: Qualitative study with FPs who delivered the predictD intervention at 35 urban primary care centres in seven Spanish cities. Face-to-face semi-structured interviews adopting a phenomenological approach. The data was triangulated by three investigators using thematic analysis and respondent validation was carried out. Results: Sixty-seven FPs were interviewed and they indicated strategies used to perform the predictD intervention, including specific communication skills such as empathy and the activation of patient resources. They perceived barriers such as lack of time and facilitators such as prior acquaintance with patients. FPs recognized the positive consequences of the intervention for FPs, patients and the doctor-patient relationship. They also identified strategies for future versions and implementations of the predictD intervention. Conclusions: The FPs who carried out the predictD intervention identified factors potentially associated with successful prevention using this program and others that could be improved. Their opinions about the predictD intervention will enable development of a more effective and acceptable version and its implementation in different primary health care settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) has stated that the three leading causes of burden of disease in 2030 are projected to include HIV/AIDS, unipolar depression and ischaemic heart disease.Aims: To estimate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) losses associated with mental disorders and chronic physical conditions in primary healthcare using data from the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders in primary care (DASMAP) study, an epidemiological survey carried out with primary care patients in Catalonia (Spain).Method: A cross-sectional survey of a representative sample of 3815 primary care patients. A preference-based measure of health was derived from the 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12): the Short Form-6D (SF-6D) multi-attribute health-status classification. Each profile generated by this questionnaire has a utility (or weight) assigned. We used non-parametric quantile regressions to model the association between both mental disorders and chronic physical condition and SF-6D scores.Results: Conditions associated with SF-6D were: mood disorders, beta = -0.20 (95% CI -0.18 to -0.21); pain, beta = -0.08 (95%CI -0.06 to -0.09) and anxiety, beta = -0.04 (95% CI -0.03 to -0.06). The top three causes of QALY losses annually per 100 000 participants were pain (5064), mood disorders (2634) and anxiety (805).Conclusions: Estimation of QALY losses showed that mood disorders ranked second behind pain-related chronic medical conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Not enough is known about universal prevention of depression in adults.Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention to prevent major depression.Design: Multicenter, cluster randomized trial with sites randomly assigned to usual care or an intervention. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01151982).Setting: 10 primary care centers in each of 7 cities in Spain.Participants: Two primary care physicians (PCPs) and 5236 nondepressed adult patients were randomly sampled from each center; 3326 patients consented and were eligible to participate.Intervention: For each patient, PCPs communicated individual risk for depression and personal predictors of risk and developed a psychosocial program tailored to prevent depression.Measurements: New cases of major depression, assessed every 6 months for 18 months.Results: At 18 months, 7.39% of patients in the intervention group (95% CI, 5.85% to 8.95%) developed major depression compared with 9.40% in the control (usual care) group (CI, 7.89% to 10.92%) (absolute difference, -2.01 percentage points [CI, -4.18 to 0.16 percentage points]; P = 0.070). Depression incidence was lower in the intervention centers in 5 cities and similar between intervention and control centers in 2 cities.Limitation: Potential self-selection bias due to nonconsenting patients.Conclusion: Compared with usual care, an intervention based on personal predictors of risk for depression implemented by PCPs provided a modest but nonsignificant reduction in the incidence of major depression. Additional study of this approach may be warranted.Primary Funding Source: Institute of Health Carlos III. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The predictD study developed and validated a risk algorithm for predicting the onset of major depression in primary care. We aimed to explore the opinion of patients about knowing their risk for depression and the values and criteria upon which these opinions are based. Methods: A maximum variation sample of patients was taken, stratified by city, age, gender, immigrant status, socio-economic status and lifetime depression. The study participants were 52 patients belonging to 13 urban health centres in seven different cities around Spain. Seven Focus Groups (FGs) were given held with primary care patients, one for each of the seven participating cities. Results: The results showed that patients generally welcomed knowing their risk for depression. Furthermore, in light of available evidence several patients proposed potential changes in their lifestyles to prevent depression. Patients generally preferred to ask their General Practitioners (GPs) for advice, though mental health specialists were also mentioned. They suggested that GPs undertake interventions tailored to each patient, from a “patient-centred” approach, with certain communication skills, and giving advice to help patients cope with the knowledge that they are at risk of becoming depressed. Conclusions: Patients are pleased to be informed about their risk for depression. We detected certain beliefs, attitudes, values, expectations and behaviour among the patients that were potentially useful for future primary prevention programmes on depression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The 'predictD algorithm' provides an estimate of the level and profile of risk of the onset of major depression in primary care attendees. This gives us the opportunity to develop interventions to prevent depression in a personalized way. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of a new intervention, personalized and implemented by family physicians (FPs), to prevent the onset of episodes of major depression. Methods/Design: This is a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT), with cluster assignment by health center and two parallel arms. Two interventions will be applied by FPs, usual care versus the new intervention predictD-CCRT. The latter has four components: a training workshop for FPs; communicating the level and profile of risk of depression; building up a tailored bio-psycho-family-social intervention by FPs to prevent depression; offering a booklet to prevent depression; and activating and empowering patients. We will recruit a systematic random sample of 3286 non-depressed adult patients (1643 in each trial arm), nested in 140 FPs and 70 health centers from7 Spanish cities. All patients will be evaluated at baseline, 6, 12 and 18 months. The level and profile of risk of depression will be communicated to patients by the FPs in the intervention practices at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Our primary outcome will be the cumulative incidence of major depression (measured by CIDI each 6 months) over 18 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes will be health-related quality of life (SF-12 and EuroQol), and measurements of cost-effectiveness and cost-utility. The inferences will be made at patient level. We shall undertake an intention-to-treat effectiveness analysis and will handle missing data using multiple imputations. We will perform multi-level logistic regressions and will adjust for the probability of the onset of major depression at 12 months measured at baseline as well as for unbalanced variables if appropriate. The economic evaluation will be approached from two perspectives, societal and health system. Discussion: To our knowledge, this will be the first RCT of universal primary prevention for depression in adults and the first to test a personalized intervention implemented by FPs. We discuss possible biases as well as other limitatio. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objectives: The aim of this study was to (1) to explore the validity of the depression diagnosis made by the general practitioner (GP) and factors associated with it, (2) to estimate rates of treatment adequacy for depression and factors associated with it and (3) to study how rates of treatment adequacy vary when using different assessment methods and criteria. Methods: Epidemiological survey carried out in 77 primary care centres representative of Catalonia. A total of 3815 patients were assessed. Results: GPs identified 69 out of the 339 individuals who were diagnosed with a major depressive episode according to the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID-I) (sensitivity 0.22; kappa value: 0.16). The presence of emotional problems as the patients'' primary complaint was associated with an increased probability of recognition. Rates of adequacy differed according to criteria: in the cases detected with the SCID-I interview, adequacy was 39.35% when using only patient self-reported data and 54.91% when taking into account data from the clinical chart. Rates of adequacy were higher when assessing adequacy among those considered depressed by the GP. Conclusion: GPs adequately treat most of those whom they consider to be depressed. However, they fail to recognise depressed patients when compared to a psychiatric gold standard. Rates of treatment adequacy varied widely depending on the method used to assess them. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background: Literature suggests that a high proportion of the population with mental disorders remains either untreated or poorly treated. This study aimed to describe the adequacy of treatment for Anxiety and Depressive disorders in Spain, how this differs between providers (primary versus specialised care) and which factors are associated with appropriate care. Method: Data were derived from the Spanish sample (N =5473) of the European Study of the Epidemiology of Mental Disorders (ESEMeD), a cross sectional study in a representative sample of adults. The subsample analyzed was composed by the 133 subjects with a mental disorder in the year prior to the interview who received treatment. Treatment adequacy was evaluated in two different ways: (1) considering definitions of minimally adequate treatment evidence based guidelines and criteria used in other epidemiological studies; (2) considering experts rating of treatment appropriateness based on the information contained in the case vignettes created from the CIDI answers. Generalised Estimating Equation (GEE) models and simple logistic regression were conducted to assess the correlates of adequate treatment. Results: Similar proportions of patients in specialty and general medical treatment received a minimally adequate treatment (31.8% and 30.5%, respectively). Associated factors to appropriateness were living in a large city, having a high educational level, and having a good self rated health state. Limitations: Treatment adequacy was based on simple information and criteria. Conclusions: Only one third of the mental health treatment in Spain met minimal adequacy criteria. More research is needed in order to find out reasons for these low rates. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]