Search

The predictD is an intervention implemented by general practitioners (GPs) to prevent depression, which reduced the incidence of depression-anxiety and was cost-effective. The e-predictD study aims to design, develop, and evaluate an evolved predictD intervention to prevent the onset of major depression in primary care based on Information and Communication Technologies, predictive risk algorithms, decision support systems (DSSs), and personalized prevention plans (PPPs). A multicenter cluster randomized trial with GPs randomly assigned to the e-predictD intervention + care-as-usual (CAU) group or the active-control + CAU group and 1-year follow-up is being conducted. The required sample size is 720 non-depressed patients (aged 18-55 years), with moderate-to-high depression risk, under the care of 72 GPs in six Spanish cities. The GPs assigned to the e-predictD-intervention group receive brief training, and those assigned to the control group do not. Recruited patients of the GPs allocated to the e-predictD group download the e-predictD app, which incorporates validated risk algorithms to predict depression, monitoring systems, and DSSs. Integrating all inputs, the DSS automatically proposes to the patients a PPP for depression based on eight intervention modules: physical exercise, social relationships, improving sleep, problem-solving, communication skills, decision-making, assertiveness, and working with thoughts. This PPP is discussed in a 15-min semi-structured GP-patient interview. Patients then choose one or more of the intervention modules proposed by the DSS to be self-implemented over the next 3 months. This process will be reformulated at 3, 6, and 9 months but without the GP-patient interview. Recruited patients of the GPs allocated to the control-group+CAU download another version of the e-predictD app, but the only intervention that they receive via the app is weekly brief psychoeducational messages (active-control group). The primary outcome is the cumulative incidence of major depression measured by the Composite International Diagnostic Interview at 6 and 12 months. Other outcomes include depressive symptoms (PHQ-9) and anxiety symptoms (GAD-7), depression risk (predictD risk algorithm), mental and physical quality of life (SF-12), and acceptability and satisfaction ('e-Health Impact' questionnaire) with the intervention. Patients are evaluated at baseline and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. An economic evaluation will also be performed (cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis) from two perspectives, societal and health systems., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT03990792., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Bellón, Rodríguez-Morejón, Conejo-Cerón, Campos-Paíno, Rodríguez-Bayón, Ballesta-Rodríguez, Rodríguez-Sánchez, Mendive, López del Hoyo, Luna, Tamayo-Morales and Moreno-Peral.)

In primary health care only chronic pain surpass depression and anxiety in loss of quality-adjusted life years. More than 70% of people suffering from common mental disorders consulted their GPs for this reason. However, 'the declining halves rule' is a reality: less than 50% of primary care attendees with common mental disorders were correctly diagnosed, of these less than 50% received adequate treatment (pharmacological or psychological) and of these less than 50% patients were adherent. Collaborative models of common mental disorders care in primary health care have demonstrated their effectiveness through clinical trials; however, its implementation in a more general and real context is difficult and its effectiveness remains unclear. Risk algorithms have been developed and validated in primary health care to predict the onset and prognosis of common mental disorders; which are useful for their treatment and prevention. There is evidence that psychological and psychoeducational interventions (and possibly those of physical exercise) are effective for the primary prevention of common mental disorders, even in primary health care; although their effects are small or moderate. These interventions have a high potential to be scalable in schools, workplace and primary health care; in addition, when they are administered through information and communication technologies (e.g. by App), in self-guided or minimally guided programs, they have demonstrated their effectiveness for the treatment and prevention of common mental disorders. They are also very accessible, have low cost and contribute to the massive implementation of these interventions in different settings., (Copyright © 2020 SESPAS. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Depression is viewed as a major and increasing public health issue, as it causes high distress in the people experiencing it and considerable financial costs to society. Efforts are being made to reduce this burden by preventing depression. A critical component of this strategy is the ability to assess the individual level and profile of risk for the development of major depression. This paper presents the cost-effectiveness of a personalized intervention based on the risk of developing depression carried out in primary care, compared with usual care., Methods: Cost-effectiveness analyses are nested within a multicentre, clustered, randomized controlled trial of a personalized intervention to prevent depression. The study was carried out in 70 primary care centres from seven cities in Spain. Two general practitioners (GPs) were randomly sampled from those prepared to participate in each centre (i.e. 140 GPs), and 3326 participants consented and were eligible to participate. The intervention included the GP communicating to the patient his/her individual risk for depression and personal risk factors and the construction by both GPs and patients of a psychosocial programme tailored to prevent depression. In addition, GPs carried out measures to activate and empower the patients, who also received a leaflet about preventing depression. GPs were trained in a 10- to 15-h workshop. Costs were measured from a societal and National Health care perspective. Qualityadjustedlife years were assessed using the EuroQOL five dimensions questionnaire. The time horizon was 18 months., Results: With a willingness-to-pay threshold of €10,000 (£8568) the probability of cost-effectiveness oscillated from 83% (societal perspective) to 89% (health perspective). If the threshold was increased to €30,000 (£25,704), the probability of being considered cost-effective was 94% (societal perspective) and 96%, respectively (health perspective). The sensitivity analysis confirmed these results., Conclusions: Compared with usual care, an intervention based on personal predictors of risk of depression implemented by GPs is a cost-effective strategy to prevent depression. This type of personalized intervention in primary care should be further developed and evaluated., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01151982. Registered on June 29, 2010.

Importance: To our knowledge, no systematic reviews or meta-analyses have been conducted to assess the effectiveness of preventive psychological and/or educational interventions for anxiety in varied populations., Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of preventive psychological and/or educational interventions for anxiety in varied population types., Data Sources: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted based on literature searches of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EMBASE, OpenGrey, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other sources from inception to March 7, 2017., Study Selection: A search was performed of randomized clinical trials assessing the effectiveness of preventive psychological and/or educational interventions for anxiety in varying populations free of anxiety at baseline as measured using validated instruments. There was no setting or language restriction. Eligibility criteria assessment was conducted by 2 of us., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias (Cochrane Collaboration's tool) were performed by 2 of us. Pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated using random-effect models. Heterogeneity was explored by random-effects meta-regression., Main Outcomes and Measures: Incidence of new cases of anxiety disorders or reduction of anxiety symptoms as measured by validated instruments., Results: Of the 3273 abstracts reviewed, 131 were selected for full-text review, and 29 met the inclusion criteria, representing 10 430 patients from 11 countries on 4 continents. Meta-analysis calculations were based on 36 comparisons. The pooled SMD was -0.31 (95% CI, -0.40 to -0.21; P < .001) and heterogeneity was substantial (I2 = 61.1%; 95% CI, 44% to 73%). There was evidence of publication bias, but the effect size barely varied after adjustment (SMD, -0.27; 95% CI, -0.37 to -0.17; P < .001). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of effect size results. A meta-regression including 5 variables explained 99.6% of between-study variability, revealing an association between higher SMD, waiting list (comparator) (β = -0.33 [95% CI, -0.55 to -0.11]; P = .005) and a lower sample size (lg) (β = 0.15 [95% CI, 0.06 to 0.23]; P = .001). No association was observed with risk of bias, family physician providing intervention, and use of standardized interviews as outcomes., Conclusions and Relevance: Psychological and/or educational interventions had a small but statistically significant benefit for anxiety prevention in all populations evaluated. Although more studies with larger samples and active comparators are needed, these findings suggest that anxiety prevention programs should be further developed and implemented.

Purpose: Although evidence exists for the efficacy of psychosocial interventions to prevent the onset of depression, little is known about its prevention in primary care. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of psychological and educational interventions to prevent depression in primary care., Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effect of psychological and educational interventions to prevent depression in nondepressed primary care attendees. We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, OpenGrey Repository, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other sources up to May 2016. At least 2 reviewers independently evaluated the eligibility criteria, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We calculated standardized mean differences (SMD) using random-effects models., Results: We selected 14 studies (7,365 patients) that met the inclusion criteria, 13 of which were valid to perform a meta-analysis. Most of the interventions had a cognitive-behavioral orientation, and in only 4 RCTs were the intervention clinicians primary care staff. The pooled SMD was -0.163 (95%CI, -0.256 to -0.070; P = .001). The risk of bias and the heterogeneity (I 2 = 20.6%) were low, and there was no evidence of publication bias. Meta-regression detected no association between SMD and follow-up times or SMD and risk of bias. Subgroup analysis suggested greater effectiveness when the RCTs used care as usual as the comparator compared with those using placebo., Conclusions: Psychological and educational interventions to prevent depression had a modest though statistically significant preventive effect in primary care. Further RCTs using placebo or active comparators are needed., (© 2017 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

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.

Objective: To adapt and validate the Spanish version of the Aid to Capacity Evaluation scale, designed to assess the capacity of the adult in medical decision-making, both in diagnosis and treatment processes., Design: Observational study of prospective validation., Setting: Primary and hospital care of the basic health area of Jaen., Participants: One hundred twenty-nine patients., Main Measurements: Questionnaire which included sociodemographic variables, concerning the decision (scope, type of decision, the need for written informed consent), assessment of the capacity to the Aid to Capacity Evaluation scale and other related comorbidity (hearing loss, alcoholism, cognitive level variables with the Mini-Mental State Examination and depression by Goldberg or Yesavage test)., Results: The tool is considered viable. The conclusions of the expert panel were favorable. The result of the criteria' validity, comparing the results with the assessment of the experts (forensic and psychiatrist) was very satisfying (P<.001). The intra-observer reliability was low (kappa=0,135). Interobserver reliability remained high (kappa=0.74). The internal consistency was awarded an alpha of Cronbach's 0,645 for the reduced model of 6 items., Conclusions: The Aid to Capacity Evaluation scale was adapted to Spanish, demonstrating adequate internal consistency and construct validity. Its use in clinical practice could contribute to the identification of patients unable to make a particular medical decision and/or to give an informed consent., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

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.

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 from 7 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 limitations., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01151982.