Search

Background: Severe mental ill health (SMI) includes schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and schizoaffective disorder and is associated with premature deaths when compared to people without SMI. Over 70% of those deaths are attributed to preventable health conditions, which have the potential to be positively affected by the adoption of healthy behaviours, such as physical activity. People with SMI are generally less active than those without and face unique barriers to being physically active. Physical activity interventions for those with SMI demonstrate promise, however, there are important questions remaining about the potential feasibility and acceptability of a physical activity intervention embedded within existing NHS pathways. Method: This is a two-arm multi-site randomised controlled feasibility trial, assessing the feasibility and acceptability of a co-produced physical activity intervention for a full-scale trial across geographically dispersed NHS mental health trusts in England. Participants will be randomly allocated via block, 1:1 randomisation, into either the intervention arm or the usual care arm. The usual care arm will continue to receive usual care throughout the trial, whilst the intervention arm will receive usual care plus the offer of a weekly, 18-week, physical activity intervention comprising walking and indoor activity sessions and community taster sessions. Another main component of the intervention includes one-to-one support. The primary outcome is to investigate the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and to scale it up to a full-scale trial, using a short proforma provided to all intervention participants at follow-up, qualitative interviews with approximately 15 intervention participants and 5 interventions delivery staff, and data on intervention uptake, attendance, and attrition. Usual care data will also include recruitment and follow-up retention. Secondary outcome measures include physical activity and sedentary behaviours, body mass index, depression, anxiety, health-related quality of life, healthcare resource use, and adverse events. Outcome measures will be taken at baseline, three, and six-months post randomisation. Discussion: This study will determine if the physical activity intervention is feasible and acceptable to both participants receiving the intervention and NHS staff who deliver it. Results will inform the design of a larger randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical and cost effectiveness of the intervention. Trial registration: ISRCTN: ISRCTN83877229. Registered on 09.09.2022. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social learning through friendships is important in child development. Autistic children often initiate and engage in social interactions differently than neurotypical peers. LEGO® based therapy is a group intervention which facilitates social interactions with peers using collaborative LEGO® play. A 1:1 cluster randomised controlled trial with autistic children aged 7–15 comparing 12 weeks' LEGO® based therapy and usual support to usual support alone in 98 mainstream schools (2017–2019) was carried out. The primary outcome was social skills (Social Skills Improvement System) completed by unblinded teachers (not intervention deliverers) at 20 weeks. Analysis used intention-to-treat. Fifty intervention schools (127 participants) and 48 control schools (123 participants) were allocated. Primary analysis included 45 intervention schools (116 participants) and 42 control schools (101 participants). The between-arms difference was 3.74 (p = 0.06, 95% confidence interval: −0.16, 7.63) and 1.68 (p = 0.43, 95% confidence interval: −2.51, 5.87) at 20 and 52 weeks (0.18 and 0.08 standardised effect sizes). Twenty-week outcomes for those receiving per protocol intervention were 4.23 (95% confidence interval 0.27, 8.19) with a standardised effect size of 0.21. Sensitivity estimates were between 3.10 and 4.37 (0.15–0.21 standardised effect sizes). Three unrelated serious adverse events were reported. LEGO® based therapy has a small positive non-significant benefit for social skills at 20 weeks but not 52 weeks. Autism is characterised by keen interests and differences in social interactions and communication. Activities that help autistic children and young people with social skills are commonly used in UK schools. LEGO® based therapy is a new activity that provides interesting and fun social opportunities for children and young people and involves building LEGO® models together. This study looked at LEGO® based therapy for the social skills of autistic children and young people in schools. It was a randomised controlled trial, meaning each school was randomly chosen (like flipping a coin) to either run LEGO® based therapy groups in school over 12 weeks and have usual support from school or other professionals, or only have usual support from school or other professionals. The effect of the LEGO® based therapy groups was measured by asking children and young people, their parents/guardians, and a teacher at school in both arms of the study to complete some questionnaires. The main objective was to see if the teacher's questionnaire answers about the children and young people's social skills changed between their first and second completions. The social skills of participants in the LEGO® based therapy groups were found to have improved in a small way when compared to usual support only. The study also found that LEGO® based therapy was not very costly for schools to run and parents/guardians and teachers said they thought it was good for their children and young people. We suggest further research into different potential benefits of LEGO® based therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment for depression. Self-directed online CBT interventions have made CBT more accessible at a lower cost. However, adherence is often poor and, in the absence of therapist support, effects are modest and short-term. Delivering CBT online using instant messaging is clinically and cost-effective; however, most existing platforms are limited to instant messaging sessions, without the support of between-session "homework" activities. The INTERACT intervention integrates online CBT materials and 'high-intensity' therapist-led CBT, delivered remotely in real-time. The INTERACT trial will evaluate this novel integration in terms of clinical and cost-effectiveness, and acceptability to therapists and clients. Methods: Pragmatic, two parallel-group multi-centre individually randomised controlled trial, with 434 patients recruited from primary care practices in Bristol, London and York. Participants with depression will be identified via General Practitioner record searches and direct referrals. Inclusion criteria: aged ≥ 18 years; score ≥ 14 on Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II); meeting International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) criteria for depression. Exclusion criteria: alcohol or substance dependency in the past year; bipolar disorder; schizophrenia; psychosis; dementia; currently under psychiatric care for depression (including those referred but not yet seen); cannot complete questionnaires unaided or requires an interpreter; currently receiving CBT/other psychotherapy; received high-intensity CBT in the past four years; participating in another intervention trial; unwilling/unable to receive CBT via computer/laptop/smartphone. Eligible participants will be randomised to integrated CBT or usual care. Integrated CBT utilises the standard Beckian intervention for depression and comprises nine live therapist-led sessions, with (up to) a further three if clinically appropriate. The first session is 60–90 min via videocall, with subsequent 50-min sessions delivered online, using instant messaging. Participants allocated integrated CBT can access integrated online CBT resources (worksheets/information sheets/videos) within and between sessions. Outcome assessments at 3-, 6-, 9- and 12-month post-randomisation. The primary outcome is the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) score at 6 months (as a continuous variable). A nested qualitative study and health economic evaluation will be conducted. Discussion: If clinically and cost-effective, this model of integrated CBT could be introduced into existing psychological services, increasing access to, and equity of, CBT provision. Trial registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN13112900. Registered on 11/11/2020. Currently recruiting participants. Trial registration data are presented in Table 1. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The prevalence of smoking is high among people living with severe mental illness (SMI). Evidence on feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions among smokers with SMI is lacking, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. We aim to test the feasibility and acceptability of delivering an evidence-based intervention,i.e., the IMPACT smoking cessation support for people with severe mental illness in South Asia (IMPACT 4S) intervention that is a combination of behavioural support and smoking cessation pharmacotherapies among adult smokers with SMI in India and Pakistan. We will also test the feasibility and acceptability of evaluating the intervention in a randomised controlled trial. Methods: We will conduct a parallel, open label, randomised controlled feasibility trial among 172 (86 in each country) adult smokers with SMI in India and Pakistan. Participants will be allocated 1:1 to either Brief Advice (BA) or the IMPACT 4S intervention. BA comprises a single five-minute BA session on stopping smoking. The IMPACT 4S intervention comprises behavioural support delivered in upto 15 one-to-one, face-to-face or audio/video, counselling sessions, with each session lasting between 15 and 40 minutes; nicotine gum and/or bupropion; and breath carbon monoxide monitoring and feedback. Outcomes are recruitment rates, reasons for ineligibility/non-participation/non-consent of participants, length of time required to achieve required sample size, retention in study and treatments, intervention fidelity during delivery, smoking cessation pharmacotherapy adherence and data completeness. We will also conduct a process evaluation. Results: Study will address- uncertainty about feasibility and acceptability of delivering smoking cessation interventions, and ability to conduct smoking cessation trials, among adult smokers with SMI in low- and middle-income countries. Conclusions: This is to inform further intervention adaptation, and the design and conduct of future randomised controlled trials on this topic. Results will be disseminated through peer-review articles, presentations at national, international conferences and policy-engagement forums. Trial registration: ISRCTN34399445 (Updated 22/03/2021), ISRCTN Registry https://www.isrctn.com/. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the UK, around 93,000 (0.8%) children and young people (CYP) are experiencing specific phobias that have a substantial impact on daily life. The current gold-standard treatment—multi-session cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) – is effective at reducing specific phobia severity; however, CBT is time consuming, requires specialist CBT therapists, and is often at great cost and limited availability. A briefer variant of CBT called one session treatment (OST) has been found to offer similar clinical effectiveness for specific phobia as multi-session CBT. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of OST compared to multi-session CBT for CYP with specific phobias through the Alleviating Specific Phobias Experienced by Children Trial (ASPECT), a two-arm, pragmatic, multi-centre, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial. Methods: CYP aged seven to 16 years with specific phobias were recruited nationally via Health and Social Care pathways, remotely randomised to the intervention group (OST) or the control group (CBT-based therapies) and analysed (n = 267). Resource use based on NHS and personal social services perspective and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) measured by EQ-5D-Y were collected at baseline and at six-month follow-up. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated, and non-parametric bootstrapping was conducted to capture the uncertainty around the ICER estimates. The results were presented on a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC). A set of sensitivity analyses (including taking a societal perspective) were conducted to assess the robustness of the primary findings. Results: After adjustment and bootstrapping, on average CYP in the OST group incurred less costs (incremental cost was -£302.96 (95% CI -£598.86 to -£28.61)) and maintained similar improvement in QALYs (QALYs gained 0.002 (95% CI − 0.004 to 0.008)). The CEAC shows that the probability of OST being cost-effective was over 95% across all the WTP thresholds. Results of a set of sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary outcomes. Conclusion: Compared to CBT, OST produced a reduction in costs and maintained similar improvement in QALYs. Results from both primary and sensitivity analyses suggested that OST was highly likely to be cost saving. Trial registration: ISRCTN19883421 (30/11/2016). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study aimed to test if a behavioural activation (BA) programme was more effective than usual care at reducing the risk of conversion to major depression over 52 weeks among adults aged 65 years or older living in rural Western Australia. Secondary aims were to test if participants assigned to the BA intervention experienced greater decline in the severity of depressive and anxiety symptoms than older adults treated with usual care over 26 and 52 weeks, as well as greater improvement in physical and mental health‐related quality of life. Methods: Randomised controlled clinical trial that started recruitment in February 2016 in rural Western Australia. We used the electoral roll to invite adults aged 65 years or over living in suitable regions of Western Australia to take part in the study. We recruited those who consented and screened positive to at least one of the two Whooley questions: feeling down/depressed/hopeless or little interest or pleasure over the past month. Participants were randomly assigned to usual care or usual care plus a phone‐delivered BA program (1:1). The intervention consisted of a self‐managed BA program supported by three 45‐min phone sessions delivered by a BA therapist over a period of 8 weeks. We used the DSM‐5 criteria to establish the presence of a major depressive episode, and Patient Health Questionnaire, Generalised Anxiety Disorder Scale and SF‐36 to assess symptoms of depression, anxiety and quality of life. Results: Of the 309 older adults randomised, 307 started the trial: 153 usual care and 154 BA (computer‐generated random permuted even blocks ranging in size from 8 to 20). Six participants developed a major depressive episode during follow‐up, four of them in the usual care group (odds ratio of depression associated with the intervention = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.04, 3.49—blind assessment). Seventy‐three (23.8%) participants were lost over 52 weeks—there were no differences between usual care and intervention group. Intention‐to‐treat analyses using mixed regression models found modest non‐significant effects of the BA intervention, while complete‐case analyses showed that participants treated with BA compared with usual care experienced significant improvements in depression and anxiety symptoms over 52 weeks, as well as improved mental health quality of life. Conclusions: Few participants developed a major depressive episode during follow‐up. The BA intervention was associated with improved symptoms of depression and anxiety, although the clinical significance of these benefits remains unclear. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The health service delivery framework collaborative care is an effective intervention for depression. However, uncertainties remain about how to optimise its delivery at scale. Structured case management is a core component of collaborative care; its delivery via the telephone may improve access. Aims: To examine using meta-regression if telephone delivered case management diminishes the clinical effectiveness of collaborative care on depressive symptoms and anti-depressant use relative to face-to-face delivery methods. Methods: Randomised controlled trials were eligible if they included collaborative care interventions for adults with depression identified using self-report measures or diagnostic interviews and reported depression outcomes. Sociodemographics, intervention characteristics, depressive symptoms, and anti-depressant use were extracted. Random effects univariable and multivariable meta-regression analyses were used to examine the moderating effect of telephone delivered case-management on outcomes. Results: Ninety-four trials were identified comprising of 103 comparisons across 24, 132 participants with depression outcomes and 67 comparisons from 15,367 participants with anti-depressant use outcomes. Telephone delivered case management did not diminish the effects of collaborative care on depressive symptoms (β = -0.01, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.10; p = 0.86). Telephone delivered case management decreased anti-depressant medication use (relative risk 0.76, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.92; p = 0.005); this effect remained when assessed simultaneously alongside other study-level moderators of collaborative care. Conclusion: Using remote platforms such as the telephone to deliver case management may be a feasible way to implement collaborative care with no loss of effectiveness on depressive symptoms. However, adherence to anti-depressant medication may decrease when telephone case management is used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCT) can struggle to recruit to target on time. This is especially the case with hard to reach populations such as those with severe mental ill health. The SCIMITAR+ trial, a trial of a bespoke smoking cessation intervention for people with severe mental ill health achieved their recruitment ahead of time and target. This article reports strategies that helped us to achieve this with the aim of aiding others recruiting from similar populations.Methods: SCIMITAR+ is a multi-centre pragmatic two-arm parallel-group RCT, which aimed to recruit 400 participants with severe mental ill health who smoke and would like to cut down or quit. The study recruited primarily in secondary care through community mental health teams and psychiatrists with a smaller number of participants recruited through primary care. Recruitment opened in October 2015 and closed in December 2016, by which point 526 participants had been recruited. We gathered information from recruiting sites on strategies which led to the successful recruitment in SCIMITAR+ and in this article present our approach to trial management along with the strategies employed by the recruiting sites.Results: Alongside having a dedicated trial manager and trial management team, we identified three main themes that led to successful recruitment. These were: clinicians with a positive attitude to research; researchers and clinicians working together; and the use of NHS targets. The overriding theme was the importance of relationships between both the researchers and the recruiting clinicians and the recruiting clinicians and the participants.Conclusions: This study makes a significant contribution to the limited evidence base of real-world cases of successful recruitment to RCTs and offers practical guidance to those planning and conducting trials. Building positive relationships between clinicians, researchers and participants is crucial to successful recruitment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is prevalent and without adequate treatment usually follows a chronic course. "High-intensity" cognitive-behaviour therapy (CBT) from a specialist therapist is current "best practice." However, access is difficult because of limited numbers of therapists and because of the disabling effects of OCD symptoms. There is a potential role for "low-intensity" interventions as part of a stepped care model. Low-intensity interventions (written or web-based materials with limited therapist support) can be provided remotely, which has the potential to increase access. However, current evidence concerning low-intensity interventions is insufficient. We aimed to determine the clinical effectiveness of 2 forms of low-intensity CBT prior to high-intensity CBT, in adults meeting the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) criteria for OCD.Methods and Findings: This study was approved by the National Research Ethics Service Committee North West-Lancaster (reference number 11/NW/0276). All participants provided informed consent to take part in the trial. We conducted a 3-arm, multicentre randomised controlled trial in primary- and secondary-care United Kingdom mental health services. All patients were on a waiting list for therapist-led CBT (treatment as usual). Four hundred and seventy-three eligible patients were recruited and randomised. Patients had a median age of 33 years, and 60% were female. The majority were experiencing severe OCD. Patients received 1 of 2 low-intensity interventions: computerised CBT (cCBT; web-based CBT materials and limited telephone support) through "OCFighter" or guided self-help (written CBT materials with limited telephone or face-to-face support). Primary comparisons concerned OCD symptoms, measured using the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale-Observer-Rated (Y-BOCS-OR) at 3, 6, and 12 months. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, depression, anxiety, and functioning. At 3 months, guided self-help demonstrated modest benefits over the waiting list in reducing OCD symptoms (adjusted mean difference = -1.91, 95% CI -3.27 to -0.55). These effects did not reach a prespecified level of "clinically significant benefit." cCBT did not demonstrate significant benefit (adjusted mean difference = -0.71, 95% CI -2.12 to 0.70). At 12 months, neither guided self-help nor cCBT led to differences in OCD symptoms. Early access to low-intensity interventions led to significant reductions in uptake of high-intensity CBT over 12 months; 86% of the patients allocated to the waiting list for high-intensity CBT started treatment by the end of the trial, compared to 62% in supported cCBT and 57% in guided self-help. These reductions did not compromise longer-term patient outcomes. Data suggested small differences in satisfaction at 3 months, with patients more satisfied with guided self-help than supported cCBT. A significant issue in the interpretation of the results concerns the level of access to high-intensity CBT before the primary outcome assessment.Conclusions: We have demonstrated that providing low-intensity interventions does not lead to clinically significant benefits but may reduce uptake of therapist-led CBT.Trial Registration: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Registry ISRCTN73535163. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundComputerised cognitive-behavioural therapy (cCBT) for depression has the potential to be efficient therapy but engagement is poor in primary care trials.AimsWe tested the benefits of adding telephone support to cCBT.MethodWe compared telephone-facilitated cCBT (MoodGYM) (n = 187) to minimally supported cCBT (MoodGYM) (n = 182) in a pragmatic randomised trial (trial registration: ISRCTN55310481). Outcomes were depression severity (Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9), anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire (GAD)-7) and somatoform complaints (PHQ-15) at 4 and 12 months.ResultsUse of cCBT increased by a factor of between 1.5 and 2 with telephone facilitation. At 4 months PHQ-9 scores were 1.9 points lower (95% CI 0.5-3.3) for telephone-supported cCBT. At 12 months, the results were no longer statistically significant (0.9 PHQ-9 points, 95% CI -0.5 to 2.3). There was improvement in anxiety scores and for somatic complaints.ConclusionsTelephone facilitation of cCBT improves engagement and expedites depression improvement. The effect was small to moderate and comparable with other low-intensity psychological interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: There is little evidence to guide management of depressive symptoms in older people.Objective: To evaluate whether a collaborative care intervention can reduce depressive symptoms and prevent more severe depression in older people.Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted from May 24, 2011, to November 14, 2014, in 32 primary care centers in the United Kingdom among 705 participants aged 65 years or older with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) subthreshold depression; participants were followed up for 12 months.Interventions: Collaborative care (n=344) was coordinated by a case manager who assessed functional impairments relating to mood symptoms. Participants were offered behavioral activation and completed an average of 6 weekly sessions. The control group received usual primary care (n=361).Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was self-reported depression severity at 4-month follow-up on the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9; score range, 0-27). Included among 10 prespecified secondary outcomes were the PHQ-9 score at 12-month follow-up and the proportion meeting criteria for depressive disorder (PHQ-9 score ≥10) at 4- and 12-month follow-up.Results: The 705 participants were 58% female with a mean age of 77 (SD, 7.1) years. Four-month retention was 83%, with higher loss to follow-up in collaborative care (82/344 [24%]) vs usual care (37/361 [10%]). Collaborative care resulted in lower PHQ-9 scores vs usual care at 4-month follow-up (mean score with collaborative care, 5.36 vs with usual care, 6.67; mean difference, -1.31; 95% CI, -1.95 to -0.67; P < .001). Treatment differences remained at 12 months (mean PHQ-9 score with collaborative care, 5.93 vs with usual care, 7.25; mean difference, -1.33; 95% CI, -2.10 to -0.55). The proportions of participants meeting criteria for depression at 4-month follow-up were 17.2% (45/262) vs 23.5% (76/324), respectively (difference, -6.3% [95% CI, -12.8% to 0.2%]; relative risk, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.61-1.27]; P = .25) and at 12-month follow-up were 15.7% (37/235) vs 27.8% (79/284) (difference, -12.1% [95% CI, -19.1% to -5.1%]; relative risk, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.46-0.91]; P = .01).Conclusions and Relevance: Among older adults with subthreshold depression, collaborative care compared with usual care resulted in a statistically significant difference in depressive symptoms at 4-month follow-up, of uncertain clinical importance. Although differences persisted through 12 months, findings are limited by attrition, and further research is needed to assess longer-term efficacy.Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN02202951. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims and objectives Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of a Post-it® note to increase response rates and shorten response times to a 4-month postal follow-up questionnaire sent to participants taking part in the Collaborative Care in Screen-Positive Elders (CASPER) trials. Method Our trial was a two-arm randomized controlled trial comparing response rates to questionnaires with a printed Post-it® note (intervention) and without (control), nested in multi centred randomized controlled trials of older people with varying levels of depressive symptoms; the CASPER+ and CASPER Self Help for those At Risk of Depression (SHARD) trials. A total of 611 participants were eligible and randomized. The primary outcome was response rates, secondary outcomes were time to response and need for a reminder. Results Of 297 participants, 266 (89.6%) returned their 4-month questionnaire in the post-it note arm, compared with 282 of 314 participants (89.8%) in the control arm (OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.57, 1.65, P = 0.913). There were no statistically significant differences in time to respond or the need to be sent a reminder. Patients with a major depressive episode were more likely to return questionnaires with post-it notes ( P of interaction = .019). Conclusion There was no significant difference in response rates, time to response, or the need for a reminder between the intervention and control at 4-month follow up for older people with depressive symptoms. However, there was a significant interaction between the Post-it® note group and level of depression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Smoking is highly prevalent among people who have experience of severe mental ill health, contributing to their poor physical health. Despite the 'culture' of smoking in mental health services, people with severe mental ill health often express a desire to quit smoking; however, the services currently available to aid quitting are those which are widely available to the general population and may not be suitable or effective for people with severe mental ill health. The aim of this study is to explore the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a bespoke smoking-cessation intervention specifically targeted at people with severe mental ill health.Methods/design: SCIMITAR+ is a multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial. We aim to recruit 400 participants aged 18 years and above with a documented diagnosis of bipolar disorder, schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who smoke. Potentially eligible participants identified in primary or secondary care will be screened, and baseline data collected. Eligible, consenting participants will be randomly allocated to one of two groups. In the intervention arm, the participant will be assigned a mental health professional trained to deliver smoking-cessation interventions who will work with the participant and participant's GP or mental health specialist to provide an individually tailored smoking-cessation service. The comparator arm will be usual care - following current NICE guidelines for smoking cessation, in line with general guidance that is offered to all smokers, with no specific adaptation or enhancement in relation to severe mental ill health. The primary outcome will be self-reported smoking cessation at 12 months verified by expired carbon monoxide (CO) measurement. Secondary outcome measures include Body Mass Index at 12 months, the Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence, Motivation to Quit questionnaire, SF-12, PHQ-9, GAD-7, EQ-5D-5 L, and health service utilisation at 6 and 12 months. The economic evaluation at 12 months will be conducted in the form of an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis.Discussion: SCIMITAR+ trial is the largest trial to our knowledge to investigate the effectiveness of a bespoke smoking-cessation service for people with severe mental ill health.Trial Registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number, ISRCTN72955454 . Registered on 16 January 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims To determine the effectiveness and safety of varenicline in treating tobacco dependence in patients with severe mental illness. Design A systematic reviewand meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials that compared varenicline with a placebo or an alternative intervention for smoking cessation or reduction. Setting Both in- and out-patient settings in any country. Participants Adult patients aged 18 years and over with any type of severe mental illness. The systematic review included eight studies comprising 398 participants. Measures Primary outcome measures were (1) smoking cessation, (2) smoking reduction measured by changes in the number of cigarettes smoked per day and (3) number of psychiatric adverse events, which were collected at the end of treatment. Findings The random-effect pooled estimates from the five studies that reported smoking-related outcomes found that varenicline is statistically superior to placebo in smoking cessation [risk ratios 4.33; 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.96-9.56], and smoking reduction was higher in varenicline groups (mean reduced daily cigarettes was 6.39; 95% CI=2.22-10.56). There is no significant difference regarding neuropsychiatric and other adverse events. Conclusions Varenicline appears to be significantly more effective than placebo in assisting with smoking cessation and reduction in people with severe mental illness. There appears to be no clear evidence that varenicline was associated with an increased risk of neuropsychiatric or other adverse events compared with placebo. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People with depression are usually managed in primary care and antidepressants are often the first-line treatment, but only one third of patients respond fully to a single antidepressant. This paper describes the protocol for a randomised controlled trial (MIR) to investigate the extent to which the addition of the antidepressant mirtazapine is effective in reducing the symptoms of depression compared with placebo in patients who are still depressed after they have been treated with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) or serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) for at least 6 weeks in primary care.Methods/design: MIR is a two-parallel group, multi-centre, pragmatic, placebo controlled, randomised trial with allocation at the level of the individual. Eligible participants are those who: are aged 18 years or older; are currently taking an SSRI/SNRI antidepressant (for at least 6 weeks at an adequate dose); score ≥ 14 on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II); have adhered to their medication; and meet ICD-10 criteria for depression (assessed using the Clinical Interview Schedule-Revised version). Participants who give written, informed consent, will be randomised to receive either oral mirtazapine or matched placebo, starting at 15 mg daily for 2 weeks and increasing to 30 mg daily thereafter, for up to 12 months (to be taken in addition to their usual antidepressant). Participants, their GPs, and the research team will all be blind to the allocation. The primary outcome will be depression symptoms at 12 weeks post randomisation, measured as a continuous variable using the BDI-II. Secondary outcomes (measured at 12, 24 and 52 weeks) include: response (reduction in depressive symptoms (BDI-II score) of at least 50% compared to baseline); remission of depression symptoms (BDI-II <10); change in anxiety symptoms; adverse effects; quality of life; adherence to antidepressant medication; health and social care use, time off work and cost-effectiveness. All outcomes will be analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. A qualitative study will explore patients' views and experiences of either taking two antidepressants, or an antidepressant and a placebo; and GPs' views on prescribing a second antidepressant in this patient group.Discussion: The MIR trial will provide evidence on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of mirtazapine as an adjunct to SSRI/SNRI antidepressants for patients in primary care who have not responded to monotherapy.Trial Registration: EudraCT Number: 2012-000090-23 (Registered January 2012); ISRCTN06653773 (Registered September 2012). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The prevalence of depressive symptoms in older people may be as high as 20 %. Depression in older people is associated with loss, loneliness and physical comorbidities; it is known to be under-diagnosed and under-treated. Older people may find it difficult to speak to their GPs about low mood, and GPs may avoid identifying depression due to limited consultation time and referral options for older patients. Methods: A nested qualitative study in a randomised controlled trial for older people with moderate to severe depression: the CASPER Plus Trial (Collaborative Care for Screen Positive Elders). We interviewed GPs, case managers (CM) and patient participants to explore perspectives and experiences of delivering and receiving a psychosocial intervention, developed specifically for older adults in primary care, within a collaborative care framework. Transcripts were analysed thematically using principles of constant comparison. Results: Thirty three interviews were conducted and, across the three data-sets, four main themes were identified: revealing hidden depression, reducing the 'blind spots', opportunity to talk outside the primary care consultation and 'moving on' from depression. Conclusions: Depression in older people is commonly hidden, and may coexist with physical conditions that are prioritised by both patients and GPs. Being invited to participate in a trial about depression may allow older people to disclose their feelings, name the problem, and seek help. Offering older people an opportunity to talk outside the primary care consultation is valued by patients and GPs. A psychosocial intervention delivered by a case manager in the primary care setting may fill the gap in the care of older people with depression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Depression accounts for the greatest disease burden of all mental health disorders, contributes heavily to healthcare costs, and by 2020 is set to become the second largest cause of global disability. Although 10% to 16% of people aged 65 years and over are likely to experience depressive symptoms, the condition is under-diagnosed and often inadequately treated in primary care. Later-life depression is associated with chronic illness and disability, cognitive impairment and social isolation. With a progressively ageing population it becomes increasingly important to refine strategies to identity and manage depression in older people. Currently, management may be limited to the prescription of antidepressants where there may be poor concordance; older people may lack awareness of psychosocial interventions and general practitioners may neglect to offer this treatment option. Methods/design CASPER Plus is a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of a collaborative care intervention for individuals aged 65 years and over experiencing moderate to severe depression. Selected practices in the North of England identify potentially eligible patients and invite them to participate in the study. A diagnostic interview is carried out and participants with major depressive disorder are randomised to either collaborative care or usual care. The recruitment target is 450 participants. The intervention, behavioural activation and medication management in a collaborative care framework, has been adapted to meet the complex needs of older people. It is delivered over eight to 10 weekly sessions by a case manager liaising with general practitioners. The trial aims to evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of collaborative care in addition to usual GP care versus usual GP care alone. The primary clinical outcome, depression severity, will be measured with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) at baseline, 4, 12 and 18 months. Cost effectiveness analysis will assess health-related quality of life using the SF-12 and EQ-5D and will examine cost-consequences of collaborative care. A qualitative process evaluation will be undertaken to explore acceptability, gauge the extent to which the intervention is implemented and to explore sustainability beyond the clinical trial. Discussion Results will add to existing evidence and a positive outcome may lead to the commissioning of this model of service in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Collaborative care is a complex intervention based on chronic disease management models and is effective in the management of depression. However, there is still uncertainty about which components of collaborative care are effective. We used meta-regression to identify factors in collaborative care associated with improvement in patient outcomes (depressive symptoms) and the process of care (use of anti-depressant medication). Methods and Findings: Systematic review with meta-regression. The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group trials registers were searched from inception to 9th February 2012. An update was run in the CENTRAL trials database on 29th December 2013. Inclusion criteria were: randomised controlled trials of collaborative care for adults ≥18 years with a primary diagnosis of depression or mixed anxiety and depressive disorder. Random effects meta-regression was used to estimate regression coefficients with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between study level covariates and depressive symptoms and relative risk (95% CI) and anti-depressant use. The association between anti-depressant use and improvement in depression was also explored. Seventy four trials were identified (85 comparisons, across 21,345 participants). Collaborative care that included psychological interventions predicted improvement in depression (β coefficient −0.11, 95% CI −0.20 to −0.01, p = 0.03). Systematic identification of patients (relative risk 1.43, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.81, p = 0.004) and the presence of a chronic physical condition (relative risk 1.32, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.65, p = 0.02) predicted use of anti-depressant medication. Conclusion: Trials of collaborative care that included psychological treatment, with or without anti-depressant medication, appeared to improve depression more than those without psychological treatment. Trials that used systematic methods to identify patients with depression and also trials that included patients with a chronic physical condition reported improved use of anti-depressant medication. However, these findings are limited by the observational nature of meta-regression, incomplete data reporting, and the use of study aggregates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Collaborative care is an effective treatment for the management of depression but evidence on its cost-effectiveness in the UK is lacking. Aims: To assess the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care in a UK primary care setting. Methods: An economic evaluation alongside a multi-centre cluster randomised controlled trial comparing collaborative care with usual primary care for adults with depression (n = 581). Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated over a 12-month follow-up, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services (i.e. Third Party Payer). Sensitivity analyses are reported, and uncertainty is presented using the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) and the cost-effectiveness plane. Results: The collaborative care intervention had a mean cost of £272.50 per participant. Health and social care service use, excluding collaborative care, indicated a similar profile of resource use between collaborative care and usual care participants. Collaborative care offered a mean incremental gain of 0.02 (95% CI: –0.02, 0.06) quality-adjusted life-years over 12 months, at a mean incremental cost of £270.72 (95% CI: –202.98, 886.04), and resulted in an estimated mean cost per QALY of £14,248. Where costs associated with informal care are considered in sensitivity analyses collaborative care is expected to be less costly and more effective, thereby dominating treatment as usual. Conclusion: Collaborative care offers health gains at a relatively low cost, and is cost-effective compared with usual care against a decision-maker willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Results here support the commissioning of collaborative care in a UK primary care setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Depression is a common, disabling condition for which psychological treatments are recommended. Behavioural activation has attracted increased interest in recent years. It has been over 5 years since our meta-analyses summarised the evidence supporting and this systematic review updates those findings and examines moderators of treatment effect. Method: Randomised trials of behavioural activation for depression versus controls or anti-depressant medication were identified using electronic database searches, previous reviews and reference lists. Data on symptom level and study level moderators were extracted and analysed using meta-analysis, sub-group analysis and meta-regression respectively. Results: Twenty six randomised controlled trials including 1524 subjects were included in this meta-analysis. A random effects meta-analysis of symptom level post treatment showed behavioural activation to be superior to controls (SMD −0.74 CI −0.91 to −0.56, k = 25, N = 1088) and medication (SMD −0.42 CI −0.83 to-0.00, k = 4, N = 283). Study quality was low in the majority of studies and follow- up time periods short. There was no indication of publication bias and subgroup analysis showed limited association between moderators and effect size. Conclusions: The results in this meta-analysis support and strengthen the evidence base indicating Behavioural Activation is an effective treatment for depression. Further high quality research with longer term follow-up is needed to strengthen the evidence base. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment for depression. However, CBT is a complex therapy that requires highly trained and qualified practitioners, and its scalability is therefore limited by the costs of training and employing sufficient therapists to meet demand. Behavioural activation (BA) is a psychological treatment for depression that may be an effective alternative to CBT and, because it is simpler, might also be delivered by less highly trained and specialised mental health workers. Methods COBRA is a two-arm, non-inferiority, patient-level randomised controlled trial, including clinical, economic, and process evaluations comparing CBT delivered by highly trained professional therapists to BA delivered by junior professional or para-professional mental health workers to establish whether the clinical effectiveness of BA is non-inferior to CBT and if BA is cost effective compared to CBT. Four hundred and forty patients with major depressive disorder will be recruited through screening in primary care. We will analyse for non-inferiority in per-protocol and intention-to-treat populations. Our primary outcome will be severity of depression symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9) at 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes will be clinically significant change and severity of depression at 18 months, and anxiety (General Anxiety Disorder-7 questionnaire) and health-related quality of life (Short-Form Health Survey-36) at 12 and 18 months. Our economic evaluation will take the United Kingdom National Health Service/Personal Social Services perspective to include costs of the interventions, health and social care services used, plus productivity losses. Costeffectiveness will explored in terms of quality-adjusted life years using the EuroQol-5D measure of health-related quality of life. Discussion The clinical and economic outcomes of this trial will provide the evidence to help policy makers, clinicians and guideline developers decide on the merits of including BA as a firstline treatment of depression. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27473954. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Depression accounts for the greatest burden of disease among all mental health problems, and is expected to become the second-highest amongst all general health problems by 2020. By the age of 75, 1 in 7 older people meet formal diagnostic criteria for depression. Efforts to ameliorate the burden of illness and personal suffering associated with depression in older people have focussed on those with more severe depressive syndromes. Less attention has been paid to those with mild disorders/sub-threshold depressive syndromes but these patients also suffer impairments in their quality of life and level of functioning.Methods/design: The CASPER study has been designed to assemble an epidemiological cohort of people over 75 years of age (the CASPER cohort), from which we will identify those eligible to participate in a trial of collaborative care for sub-threshold depression (the CASPER trial).We aim to undertake a pragmatic randomised controlled multi-centre trial evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care; a low intensity psychological intervention in addition to usual general practitioner care versus usual general practitioner care alone. General practitioners from practices based in the North of England will be asked to identify potentially eligible patients over the age of 75 years. Patients will be sent a letter inviting them to participate in the study.We aim to recruit approximately 540 participants for the CASPER trial. A diagnostic interview will be carried out to ascertain trial eligibility with the major depressive episode module of the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.), eligible participants randomised to either the intervention or usual care. The primary outcome will be measured with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and additional quality of life measures will be collected. Data will be collected at baseline, 4 and 12 months for both trial and cohort participants.Trial Registration: ISRCTN: ISRCTN02202951. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Although the PHQ-9 is widely used in primary care, little is known about its performance in quantifying improvement. The original validation study of the PHQ-9 defined clinically significant change as a post-treatment score of ≤9 combined with improvement of 50%, but it is unclear how this relates to other theoretically informed methods of defining successful outcome. We compared a range of definitions of clinically significant change (original definition, asymptomatic criterion, reliable and clinically significant change criteria a, b and c) in a clinical trial of a community-level depression intervention. Method: Randomised Control Trial of collaborative care for depression. Levels of agreement were calculated between the standard definition, other definitions, and gold-standard diagnostic interview. Results: The standard definition showed good agreement (kappa>0.60) with the other definitions and had moderate, though acceptable, agreement with the diagnostic interview (kappa=0.58). The standard definition corresponded closely to reliable and clinically significant change criterion c, the recommended method of quantifying improvement when clinical and non-clinical distributions overlap. Limitations: The absence of follow-up data meant that an asymptomatic criterion rather than remission or recovery criteria were used. Conclusion: The close agreement between the standard definition and reliable and clinically significant change criterion c provides some support for the standard definition of improvement. However, it may be preferable to use a reliable change index rather than 50% improvement. Remission status, based on the asymptomatic range and a lower PHQ-9 score, may provide a useful additional category of clinical change. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Generic health preference measures that capture quality of life improvements in depression are important for economic analysis of new technologies. To compare two widely used preference measures, the EQ-5D and SF-6D, in terms of their dimensions and health utility values. EQ-5D and SF-6D data collected from 114 patients with depression, who participated in a cluster, randomised controlled trial to evaluate a collaborative care intervention in UK, primary care practices. Utilities were examined across the whole sample and by level of depression severity using the PHQ-9. Depression was associated with disutility at baseline. At 3 month follow-up mean utility increased 0.147 for EQ-5D and 0.082 for SF-6D. Health gains were observed in patients in remission from depression and those with the mildest level of depression severity. Both generic preference measures were sensitive to health gains in depression within a relatively short follow-up period; larger health gain was observed for the EQ-5D. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background There is an ethical imperative to evaluate service and policy initiatives, such as those highlighted in the recent National Service Framework, just as there is to evaluate individual treatments. Aims To outline the best methods available for evaluating the delivery and organisation of mental health services. Method We present a narrative methodological overview, using salient examples from mental health services research. Results Cluster randomised studies involve the random allocation of groups of clinicians, clinical teams or hospitals rather than individual patients, and produce the least biased evaluation of mental health policy, organisation or service delivery. Where randomisation is impossible or impractical (often when services or policies are already implemented), then quasi-experimental designs can be used. Such designs have both strengths and many potential flaws. Conclusions The gold standard remains the randomised trial, but with due consideration to the unit of randomisation. Use of quasi-experimental designs can be justified in certain circumstances but should be attempted and interpreted with caution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) face high burden of common mental disorders (CMDs). Most of the evidence for the Collaborative Care (CC) model effectiveness comes from high-income countries (HICs) and may not generalise to LMICs. A systematic review was conducted to assess effectiveness of CC for CMDs in LMICs. We searched eight-databases, two trial registries (2011-November 2023). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults (≥18 years) with depression/anxiety diagnosis, reporting remission/change in symptom severity were eligible. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted for: short-(0–6 months), medium-(7–12 months), long-(13–24 months), and very long-term (≥25 months) follow-up. Quality was assessed with Cochrane RoB2 tool. PROSPERO registration: CRD42022380407. Searches identified 7494 studies, 12 trials involving 13,531 participants were included; nine had low-risk of bias. CC was more effective than usual care for depression: dichotomous outcomes (short-term, 7 studies, relative risk (RR) 1.39, 95%CI 1.31, 1.48; medium-term, 6 studies, RR 1.35, 95%CI 1.28, 1.43); and continuous outcomes (short-term, 8 studies, standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.51, 95%CI −0.80, −0.23; medium-term, 8 studies, SMD −0.59, 95%CI −1.00, −0.17). CC was found to be effective at long-term (one study), but not at very long-term. Improvement in anxiety outcomes with CC (2 studies, 340 participants) reported up to 12-months; improvements in quality-of-life were not statistically significant (3 studies, 796 participants, SMD 0.62, 95%CI −0.10, 1.34). Pooled estimates showed high heterogeneity. In LMICs, CC was more effective than usual care for improving depression outcomes at short and medium-term follow-up. A similar improvement was found for anxiety outcomes, but evidence is limited. • Collaborative Care shows effectiveness for treatment of common mental disorders. • Effectiveness established even in the presence of physical comorbidity. • Delivery through task shifting by trained non-mental health workers is effective. • Future research to focus on implementation in low- and middle-income countries [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Antidepressants are used both for treating acute episodes and for prophylaxis to prevent future episodes of depression, also called maintenance treatment. This article describes the protocol for a randomised controlled trial (ANTLER: ANTidepressants to prevent reLapse in dEpRession) to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in UK primary care of continuing on long-term maintenance antidepressants compared with a placebo in preventing relapse of depression in those who have taken antidepressants for more than 9 months and who are currently well enough to consider stopping maintenance treatment.Methods/design: The ANTLER trial is an individually randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in which participants are randomised to remain on active medication or to take an identical placebo after a tapering period of 2 months. Eligible participants are those who: are between the ages of 18 and 74 years; have had at least two episodes of depression; and have been taking antidepressants for 9 months or more and are currently taking citalopram 20 mg, sertraline 100 mg, fluoxetine 20 mg or mirtazapine 30 mg but are well enough to consider stopping their medication. The participants will be followed up at 6, 12, 26, 39 and 52 weeks. The primary outcome will be the time in weeks to the beginning of the first episode of depression after randomisation. This will be measured using a retrospective version of the Clinical Interview Schedule-Revised administered at 12, 26, 39 and 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes will include depressive and anxiety symptoms, adverse effects, withdrawal symptoms, emotional processing tasks, quality of life and the resources and costs used. We will also perform a cost-effectiveness analysis based on results of the trial.Discussion: The ANTLER trial findings will inform primary care prescribing practice by providing a valid and generalisable estimate of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of long-term maintenance treatment with antidepressants in UK primary care.Trial Registration: Controlled Trials ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN15969819. Registered on 21 September 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Depression in older people may have a prevalence as high as 20%, and is associated with physical co-morbidities, loss, and loneliness. It is associated with poorer health outcomes and reduced quality of life, and is under-diagnosed and under-treated. Older people may find it difficult to speak to their GPs about low mood, and GPs may avoid identifying depression due to limited consultation time and referral options for older patients. Methods: A qualitative study nested within a randomised controlled trial for older people with moderate to severe depression: the CASPER plus Trial (Care for Screen Positive Elders). We interviewed patient participants, GPs, and case managers (CM) to explore patients' and professionals' views on collaborative care developed for older people, and how this model could be implemented at scale. Transcripts were analysed thematically using normalization process theory. Results: Thirty-three interviews were conducted. Across the three data-sets, four main themes were identified based on the main principles of the Normalization Process Theory: understanding of collaborative care, interaction between patients and professionals, liaison between GPs and case managers, and the potential for implementation. Conclusions: A telephone-delivered intervention, incorporating behavioural activation, is acceptable to older people with depression, and is deliverable by case managers. The collaborative care framework makes sense to case managers and has the potential to optimize patient outcomes, but implementation requires integration in day to day general practice. Increasing GPs' understanding of collaborative care might improve liaison and collaboration with case managers, and facilitate the intervention through better support of patients. The CASPER plus model, delivering therapy to older adults with depression by telephone, offers the potential for implementation in a resource-poor health service. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An abstract of the article "Recruiting ahead of target: What worked in the REEACT trial?," by Puvan Tharmanathan and colleagues, is presented.

An abstract of the article "Can we improve recruitment to trials and informed consent by improving participant information sheets? - A nested RCT," by Peter Knapp and colleagues, is presented.

The article comments on the study "Telephone screening, outreach and care management for depressed workers and impact on clinical and work productivity outcomes: A randomized controlled trial," by P.S. Wang and colleagues. It points out that authors of the study presented an important workplace trial where they adapt collaborative care to an employee population experiencing significant depression.

Abstract: Objective: To examine whether randomized economic evaluations report clinical effectiveness estimates that are unrepresentative of the totality of the research literature. Study Design and Setting: From 36 studies (12,294 patients) of enhanced care for depression, we compared pooled clinical effect sizes in studies with a concurrent economic evaluation to those in studies that did not publish a concurrent economic evaluation, using metaregression. Results: The pooled clinical effect size of studies publishing an economic evaluation was almost twice as large as that of studies that did not publish an economic evaluation (pooled standardized mean difference [SMD] in randomized controlled trials [RCTs] with an economic evaluation=0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.23–0.46; pooled SMD in RCTs without an economic evaluation=0.17; 95% CI=0.10–0.25). This difference was statistically significant (SMD between group difference=−0.17; 95% CI: −0.31 to −0.02; P =0.02). Conclusion: Publication of an economic evaluation of enhanced care for depression was associated with a larger clinical effect size. Cost-effectiveness estimates should be interpreted with caution, and the representativeness of the clinical data on which they are based should always be considered. Further research is needed to explore this observed association and potential bias in other areas. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Objective: To examine the feasibility of telephone-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy (T-CBT) in an occupational context, with reference to participant recruitment, treatment adherence, follow-up and effect. Method: Eligible participants comprised all employees of a large communications company with authorized work absence due to mild/moderate mental health difficulties over a 10-month period. Fifty-three consenting participants were centrally randomized to 12 weeks T-CBT or usual care, with minimization on age, gender and illness severity. Primary (symptom severity) and secondary outcomes (self-rated work performance and productivity) were measured at baseline and 3-months via postal questionnaires. Intention-to-treat analysis comprised multiple regression modeling with adjustment for missing response predictors, minimization variables and baseline values. Results: Twenty-three employees attended one or more T-CBT sessions. T-CBT was associated with medium–large effects sizes on clinical outcomes (0.63–0.77) and work productivity scores (0.75–0.88). Twenty-one patients failed to return 3-month primary outcome data. Non-respondents were more likely to be male and more severely ill. Conclusion: Delivery of T-CBT in an occupational context is feasible with evidence of potential effect. Larger-scale trials are warranted. These studies demand assertive outreach or telephone-based assessment strategies in order to maximize participant recruitment and follow-up. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Patients with depression who are treated in primary care practices may receive antidepressants for prolonged periods. Data are limited on the effects of maintaining or discontinuing antidepressant therapy in this setting.Methods: We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial involving adults who were being treated in 150 general practices in the United Kingdom. All the patients had a history of at least two depressive episodes or had been taking antidepressants for 2 years or longer and felt well enough to consider stopping antidepressants. Patients who had received citalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline, or mirtazapine were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to maintain their current antidepressant therapy (maintenance group) or to taper and discontinue such therapy with the use of matching placebo (discontinuation group). The primary outcome was the first relapse of depression during the 52-week trial period, as evaluated in a time-to-event analysis. Secondary outcomes were depressive and anxiety symptoms, physical and withdrawal symptoms, quality of life, time to stopping an antidepressant or placebo, and global mood ratings.Results: A total of 1466 patients underwent screening. Of these patients, 478 were enrolled in the trial (238 in the maintenance group and 240 in the discontinuation group). The average age of the patients was 54 years; 73% were women. Adherence to the trial assignment was 70% in the maintenance group and 52% in the discontinuation group. By 52 weeks, relapse occurred in 92 of 238 patients (39%) in the maintenance group and in 135 of 240 (56%) in the discontinuation group (hazard ratio, 2.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.56 to 2.70; P<0.001). Secondary outcomes were generally in the same direction as the primary outcome. Patients in the discontinuation group had more symptoms of depression, anxiety, and withdrawal than those in the maintenance group.Conclusions: Among patients in primary care practices who felt well enough to discontinue antidepressant therapy, those who were assigned to stop their medication had a higher risk of relapse of depression by 52 weeks than those who were assigned to maintain their current therapy. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research; ANTLER ISRCTN number, ISRCTN15969819.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Depression is a common, debilitating, and costly disorder. Many patients request psychological therapy, but the best-evidenced therapy—cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)—is complex and costly. A simpler therapy—behavioural activation (BA)—might be as effective and cheaper than is CBT. We aimed to establish the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of BA compared with CBT for adults with depression. Methods In this randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults aged 18 years or older meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV criteria for major depressive disorder from primary care and psychological therapy services in Devon, Durham, and Leeds (UK). We excluded people who were receiving psychological therapy, were alcohol or drug dependent, were acutely suicidal or had attempted suicide in the previous 2 months, or were cognitively impaired, or who had bipolar disorder or psychosis or psychotic symptoms. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) remotely using computer-generated allocation (minimisation used; stratified by depression severity [Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) score of <19 vs ≥19], antidepressant use, and recruitment site) to BA from junior mental health workers or CBT from psychological therapists. Randomisation done at the Peninsula Clinical Trials Unit was concealed from investigators. Treatment was given open label, but outcome assessors were masked. The primary outcome was depression symptoms according to the PHQ-9 at 12 months. We analysed all those who were randomly allocated and had complete data (modified intention to treat [mITT]) and also all those who were randomly allocated, had complete data, and received at least eight treatment sessions (per protocol [PP]). We analysed safety in the mITT population. The non-inferiority margin was 1·9 PHQ-9 points. This trial is registered with the ISCRTN registry, number ISRCTN27473954. Findings Between Sept 26, 2012, and April 3, 2014, we randomly allocated 221 (50%) participants to BA and 219 (50%) to CBT. 175 (79%) participants were assessable for the primary outcome in the mITT population in the BA group compared with 189 (86%) in the CBT group, whereas 135 (61%) were assessable in the PP population in the BA group compared with 151 (69%) in the CBT group. BA was non-inferior to CBT (mITT: CBT 8·4 PHQ-9 points [SD 7·5], BA 8·4 PHQ-9 points [7·0], mean difference 0·1 PHQ-9 points [95% CI −1·3 to 1·5], p=0·89; PP: CBT 7·9 PHQ-9 points [7·3]; BA 7·8 [6·5], mean difference 0·0 PHQ-9 points [–1·5 to 1·6], p=0·99). Two (1%) non-trial-related deaths (one [1%] multidrug toxicity in the BA group and one [1%] cancer in the CBT group) and 15 depression-related, but not treatment-related, serious adverse events (three in the BA group and 12 in the CBT group) occurred in three [2%] participants in the BA group (two [1%] patients who overdosed and one [1%] who self-harmed) and eight (4%) participants in the CBT group (seven [4%] who overdosed and one [1%] who self-harmed). Interpretation We found that BA, a simpler psychological treatment than CBT, can be delivered by junior mental health workers with less intensive and costly training, with no lesser effect than CBT. Effective psychological therapy for depression can be delivered without the need for costly and highly trained professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose of research To validate the Whooley questions as a screening tool for depression amongst a population of older adults in UK primary care. Objective To assess the diagnostic performance of the Whooley questions as a screening tool for depression amongst older adults in UK primary care. Participants A cross-sectional validation study was conducted with 766 patients aged ≥75 from UK primary care, recruited via 17 general practices based in the North of England during the pilot phase of a randomized controlled trial. Main outcome measures Sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios comparing the index test (two Whooley questions) with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD) ascertained by the reference standard Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI). Results The two screening questions had a sensitivity of 94.3% (95% confidence interval, 80.8–99.3%) and specificity of 62.7% (95% confidence interval, 59.0–66.2%). The likelihood ratio for a positive test was 2.5 (95% confidence interval, 2.2–2.9) and the likelihood ratio for a negative test was 0.09 (95% confidence interval, 0.02–0.35). Conclusion The two Whooley questions missed few cases of depression. However, they were responsible for a high rate of false positives. This creates additional burden on general practitioners, to conduct more detailed investigation on patients who screen positive, but many of whom turn out not to have MDD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Depressed mood often co-exists with frequent drug and alcohol use. This trial examined the feasibility of screening, recruitment, randomization and engagement of drug and alcohol users in psychological interventions for depression symptoms. A total of 50 patients involved in community drugs and alcohol treatment (CDAT) were randomly allocated to behavioral activation delivered by psychological therapists ( n = 23) or to cognitive behavioral therapy based self-help introduced by CDAT workers ( n = 27). We examined recruitment and engagement rates, as well as changes in depression (PHQ-9) symptoms and changes in percent days abstinent (PDA within last month) at 24 weeks follow-up. The ratio of screened to recruited participants was 4 to 1, and the randomization schedule successfully generated 2 groups with comparable characteristics. Follow-up was possible with 78% of participants post-treatment. Overall engagement in psychological interventions was low; only 42% of randomized participants attended at least 1 therapy session. Patients offered therapy appointments co-located in CDAT clinics were more likely to engage with treatment (odds ratio = 7.14, p = .04) compared to those offered appointments in community psychological care clinics. Intention-to-treat analyses indicated no significant between-group differences at follow-up in mean PHQ-9 change scores ( p = .59) or in PDA ( p = .08). Overall, it was feasible to conduct a pragmatic trial within busy CDAT services, maximizing external validity of study results. Moderate and comparable improvements in depression symptoms over time were observed for participants in both treatment groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]