Search

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: Panic disorder (PD) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) are two of the most disabling and costly anxiety disorders seen in primary care. However, treatment quality of these disorders in primary care generally falls beneath the standard of international guidelines. Collaborative stepped care is recommended for improving treatment of anxiety disorders, but cost-effectiveness of such an intervention has not yet been assessed in primary care. This article describes the aims and design of a study that is currently underway. The aim of this study is to evaluate effects and costs of a collaborative stepped care approach in the primary care setting for patients with PD and GAD compared with care as usual., Methods/design: The study is a two armed, cluster randomized controlled trial. Care managers and their primary care practices will be randomized to deliver either collaborative stepped care (CSC) or care as usual (CAU). In the CSC group a general practitioner, care manager and psychiatrist work together in a collaborative care framework. Stepped care is provided in three steps: 1) guided self-help, 2) cognitive behavioral therapy and 3) antidepressant medication. Primary care patients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of PD and/or GAD will be included. 134 completers are needed to attain sufficient power to show a clinically significant effect of 1/2 SD on the primary outcome measure, the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI). Data on anxiety symptoms, mental and physical health, quality of life, health resource use and productivity will be collected at baseline and after three, six, nine and twelve months., Discussion: It is hypothesized that the collaborative stepped care intervention will be more cost-effective than care as usual. The pragmatic design of this study will enable the researchers to evaluate what is possible in real clinical practice, rather than under ideal circumstances. Many requirements for a high quality trial are being met. Results of this study will contribute to treatment options for GAD and PD in the primary care setting. Results will become available in 2011., Trial Registration: NTR1071.

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]