Improving physicians' recognition and treatment of depression in general medical care. Results from a randomized clinical trial. Systematic detection and multidisciplinary care of depression in older medical inpatients: a randomized trial. Case management for depression by health care assistants in small primary care practices: a cluster randomized trial. Graduate mental health worker case management of depression in UK primary care: a pilot study. A randomized trial of office-based screening for common problems in older persons. Twelve month outcome of depression in general practice: does detection or disclosure make a difference? Effects of a clinical-practice guideline and practice-based education on detection and outcome of depression in primary care: Hampshire Depression Project randomised controlled trial. Case-finding for depression in primary care: a randomized trial. Randomised controlled trial of tailored strategies to implement guidelines for the management of patients with depression in general practice. Effectiveness of an educational strategy to improve family physicians' detection and management of depression: a randomized controlled trial. The effects and expense of augmenting usual cancer clinic care with telephone problem-solving counseling.
A randomized clinical trial was performed to assess whether the results of a depression screening instrument, when provided to physicians, could influence their recognition and treatment of depression in a primary care setting. The intervention consisted of randomly informing or not informing physicians of the depression status of 100 patients who screened positively for depression on both the Zung Self-rating Depression Scale (SDS) and a DSM-III screen. For 12 months patients were followed to assess depression status, and medical records were audited to assess depression recognition and treatment. Results show that feedback to physicians of SDS scores of previously unrecognized depressed patients makes a significant difference in greater recognition (56.2% vs. 34.6%) and treatment (56.2% vs. 42.3%) of depression over the 12-month study period. This was especially true for patients with high somatic (P less than 0.05) or low psychologic symptoms of depression (P less than 0.05). These results suggest that routine use of a depression screening instrument can improve physician recognition of depression, with increased initiation of treatment. Major depression is a frequent and serious disorder in older medical inpatients. Because the condition goes undetected and untreated in most of these patients, we conducted a randomized clinical trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a strategy of systematic detection and multidisciplinary treatment of depression in this population.
                Consecutive patients aged 65 years or more admitted to general medical services in a primary care hospital between October 1999 and November 2002 were screened for depression with the Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS) within 48 hours after admission. Patients found to have major depression were randomly allocated to receive the intervention or usual care. The intervention involved consultation and treatment by a psychiatrist and follow-up by a research nurse and the patient's family physician. Research assistants, blind to group allocation, collected data from the patients at enrollment and at 3 and 6 months later using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), the Medical Outcomes 36-item Short Form (SF-36), the DIS, the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Older Americans Resources and Services (OARS) questionnaire to assess basic and instrumental activities of daily living (OARS-ADL and OARS-IADL) and the Rating Scale for Side Effects. Data on the severity of illness, length of hospital stay, health services and medication use, mortality and process of care were also collected. The primary outcome measures were the HAMD and SF-36.
                Of 1500 eligible patients who were screened, 157 were found to have major depression and consented to participate (78 in the intervention group and 79 in the usual care group). At randomization, there were no clinically or statistically significant differences between the 2 groups. Sixty-four patients completed follow-up to 6 months, 57 withdrew, and 36 died. At 6 months, there were no clinically or statistically significant differences the 2 groups in HAMD or SF-36 scores or any of the secondary outcome measures.
                We were unable to demonstrate that systematic detection and multidisciplinary care of depression was more beneficial than usual care for elderly medical inpatients. Case management by health care assistants in small primary care practices provides unclear benefit for improving depression symptoms.
                To determine whether case management provided by health care assistants in small primary care practices is more effective than usual care in improving depression symptoms and process of care for patients with major depression.
                Cluster randomized, controlled trial. A central automated system generated the randomization scheme, which was stratified by urban and rural practices; allocation sequence was concealed until groups were assigned.
                74 small primary care practices in Germany from April 2005 to September 2007.
                626 patients age 18 to 80 years with major depression.
                Structured telephone interview to monitor depression symptoms and support for adherence to medication, with feedback to the family physician.
                Depression symptoms at 12 months, as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9); secondary outcomes were patient assessment of chronic illness care, adherence to medication, and quality of life.
                A total of 310 patients were randomly assigned to case management and 316 to usual care. At 12 months, 249 intervention recipients and 278 control patients were assessed; 555 patients were included in a modified intention-to-treat-analysis (267 intervention recipients vs. 288 control patients). Compared with control patients, intervention recipients had lower mean PHQ-9 values in depression symptoms (-1.41 [95% CI, -2.49 to -0.33]; P = 0.014), more favorable assessments of care (3.41 vs. 3.11; P = 0.011), and increased treatment adherence (2.70 vs. 2.53; P = 0.042). Quality-of-life scores did not differ between groups.
                Patients, health care assistants, family physicians, and researchers were not blinded to group assignment, and 12-month follow-up of patients was incomplete.
                Case management provided by primary care practice-based health care assistants may reduce depression symptoms and improve process of care for patients with major depression more than usual care.
                German Ministry of Education and Research. Based on data from large multicentre US trials, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is advocating a stepped-care model for the management of depression, with 'case management' or 'collaborative care' for selected patients in primary care.
                To conduct a pilot study examining the use of graduate mental health workers case managing depressed primary care NHS patients.
                A randomised controlled trial comparing usual GP care with or without case management over 16 weeks of acute antidepressant drug treatment.
                Three primary care practices in the North East of England.
                Patients with depression, aged 18-65 years, who had failed to adequately respond to antidepressant treatment, were randomised to the two treatments. Assessments were made at baseline, 12, and 24 weeks using a combination of observer and self ratings.
                Randomisation of 62 patients required screening of 1073 potential patients. There was little difference in outcome between the two treatment arms but a gradual improvement in symptoms over time was seen. Client satisfaction was assessed as high across both treatments.
                While this pilot study confirmed the integrity of the study protocol and the suitability of the outcome measures and randomisation procedure, it raises questions regarding the practicality of recruitment and feasibility of the intervention. It would be crucial to address these issues prior to the implementation of a large multi-centre randomised controlled trial. To test the effectiveness of a 10-minute office-staff administered screen to evaluate malnutrition/weight loss, visual impairment, hearing loss, cognitive impairment, urinary incontinence, depression, physical limitations, and reduced leg mobility among older persons seen in office practice. This screen was coupled with clinical summaries to assist the physician in further evaluating and managing the screen-included problems.
                Twenty-six community-based office practices of internists and family physicians in Los Angeles were randomized to intervention or control groups. Two hundred and sixty-one patients aged > or = 70 years and seeing these physicians for a new visit or a physical examination participated in the study. At the enrollment visit intervention group patients were administered the screening measure and their physicians were given the pertinent clinical summaries. Outcome measures were detection of, and intervention for conditions screened, and health status 6 months after the intervention.
                Hearing loss was both more commonly detected (40% intervention versus 28% control) and further evaluated (29% versus 16%) by physicians in the intervention group (P < 0.05). No other differences in the frequency of problem detection or intervention were noted between groups. Six months after the intervention no differences were noted in health status between groups.
                A brief measure to screen for common conditions in older persons was associated with more frequent detection and follow-up assessment of hearing loss. Although the measure was well accepted by physicians and their staffs, it did not appear to affect detection and intervention in regard to the other screen-included conditions, or health status at 6 months. To assess the extent to which the outcome of depression among primary care attenders may be affected by medical diagnosis or by feedback of questionnaire results in unrecognised cases.
                Prospective 12 month study including a randomised controlled trial of the effects of disclosure, with data on depression status and clinical management collected by questionnaire and interview.
                Two group practices in north Liverpool.
                1099/1444 (76%) consecutive adult attenders completed the Beck depression inventory, of whom 179 with scores of at least 14 were followed up.
                Disclosure of a random 45% (52/116) of depression scores to general practitioners for subjects whose depression was undetected.
                Depression status estimated by depression score at start of study and at six and 12 months, with subsample validation against ICD-10 criteria.
                Questionnaire response rates were 76% (136/179) at six months and 68% (122/179) at 12 months and were higher for women than men. The median depression score was 19 (interquartile range 15 to 22) initially, decreasing to 16 (11 to 23) at 12 months. The median depression score decreased significantly (two sided test, P = 0.019) in subjects whose depression was unrecognised at the index consultation but increased in those whose depression had been detected by their general practitioners. Disclosure of cases of unrecognised depression to general practitioners had no effect on outcome. Intention to treat was associated with a worse prognosis, although only a minority of subjects received adequate treatment.
                Disclosure of undetected depression did not improve prognosis. A diagnosis of depression in general practice should be considered simply as a marker of its severity. Depression is a major individual and public-health burden throughout the world and is managed mainly in primary care. The most effective strategy to reduce this burden has been believed to be education of primary-care practitioners. We tested this assumption by assessing the effectiveness of an educational programme based on a clinical-practice guideline in improving the recognition and outcome of primary-care depression.
                We carried out a randomised controlled trial in a representative sample of 60 primary-care practices (26% of the total) in an English health district. Education was delivered to practice teams and quality tested by feedback from participants and expert raters. The primary endpoints were recognition of depression, defined by the hospital anxiety and depression (HAD) scale, and clinical improvement. Analysis was by intention to treat.
                The education was well received by participants, 80% of whom thought it would change their management of patients with depression. 21409 patients were screened, of whom 4192 were classified as depressed by the HAD scale. The sensitivity of physicians to depressive symptoms was 39% in the intervention group and 36% in the control group after education (odds ratio 1.2 [95% CI 0.88-1.61]). The outcome of depressed patients as a whole at 6 weeks or 6 months after the assessment did not significantly improve.
                Although well received, this in-practice programme, which was designed to convey the current consensus on best practice for the care of depression, did not deliver improvements in recognition of or recovery from depression. Depression is a highly prevalent, morbid, and costly illness that is often unrecognized and inadequately treated. Because depression questionnaires have the potential to improve recognition, we evaluated the accuracy and effects on primary care of two case-finding instruments compared to usual care.
                The study was conducted at three university-affiliated and one community-based medical clinics. Consecutive patients were randomly assigned to be asked a single question about mood, to fill out the 20-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Screen, or to usual care. Within 72 hours, patients were assessed for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Third Revised Edition (DSM-III-R) disorders by an assessor blinded to the screening results. Process of care was assessed using chart audit and administrative databases; patient and physician satisfaction was assessed using Likert scales. At 3 months, depressed patients and a random sample of nondepressed patients were re-assessed for DSM-III-R disorders and symptom counts.
                We approached 1,083 patients, of whom 969 consented to screening and were assigned to the single question (n = 330), 20-item questionnaire (n = 323), or usual care (n = 316). The interview for DSM-III-R diagnosis was completed in 863 (89%) patients; major depression, dysthymia, or minor depression was present in 13%. Both instruments were sensitive, but the 20-item questionnaire was more specific than the single question (75% vs 66%, P = 0.03). The 20-item questionnaire was less likely to be self-administered (54% vs 90%) and took significantly more time to complete (15 vs 248 seconds). Case-finding with the 20-item questionnaire or single question modestly increased depression recognition, 30/77 (39%) compared with 11/38 (29%) in usual care (P = 0.31) but did not affect treatment (45% vs 43%, P = 0.88). Effects on DSM-III-R symptoms were mixed. Recovery from depression was more likely in the case-finding than usual care groups, 32/67 (48%) versus 8/30 (27%, P = 0.03), but the mean improvement in depression symptoms did not differ significantly (1.6 vs 1.5 symptoms, P = 0.21).
                A simple question about depression has similar performance characteristics as a longer 20-item questionnaire and is more feasible because of its brevity. Case-finding leads to a modest increase in recognition rates, but does not have consistently positive effects on patient outcomes. Various methods are available for implementing change in the clinical behaviour of general practitioners (GPs). Although passive dissemination of information is generally ineffective, other methods can be variably effective. Few studies have investigated the impact of tailored methods.
                To determine whether methods tailored to overcome obstacles to change using psychological theories are more effective than dissemination alone in the implementation of guidelines for depression among GPs.
                Randomised controlled trial.
                Sixty general practices in England; 30 GPs in the control group, 34 in the intervention group.
                Practitioners identified patients presenting with depression before and after the implementation of guidelines (control group n = 192 in the first data collection, n = 181 in the second; intervention group n = 210 in the first data collection and n = 197 in the second). The main outcome measures were: record of adherence to guideline recommendations in clinical records; proportion of patients with Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) score less than 11 at 16 weeks after diagnosis.
                In comparison with the control group, in the group of GPs receiving tailored implementation, there were increases in the proportions of patients assessed for suicide risk. In the intervention group, the proportion of patients with BDI scores of less than 11 at 16 weeks increased.
                Obstacles to implementation can be identified and strategies tailored to address them. The findings indicate a new approach for research to understand and develop methods of implementation. Depression, a common disorder often treated by family physicians, may be both underdiagnosed and undertreated. The objective of this study was to determine whether the diagnosis and treatment of depression by family physicians could be improved through an educational strategy.
                In this study, conducted between July and December 1997, 42 family physicians in Newfoundland were randomly assigned to an intervention group (3-hour case-based educational session on clinical practice guidelines [CPGs] for depression and access to a psychiatrist for consultation) or to a control group (receipt of CPGs without educational session or access to the psychiatrist). Physicians were asked to keep a log of patients with newly diagnosed depression and to record information on severity of depression, medications and referrals to mental health professionals. Patients were asked to complete the Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) scale before treatment and after 6 months of follow-up. The primary outcome measure was the "gain" score (difference between first and last CES-D scores).
                During the study period physicians in the intervention group diagnosed 91 new cases of depression (mean 4.1 per physician) and those in the control group diagnosed 56 (mean 2.8 per physician); the difference was not significant. Most patients (91.2% in the intervention group and 89.3% in the control group received a prescription for an antidepressant on their first visit. Similar proportions (46.2% in the intervention group and 37.5% in the control group) took their medication for the full 6 months; however, significantly more patients in the intervention group were taking an antidepressant at the 6-month follow-up (56% v. 39.3%, p = 0.02). The mean number of visits per patient was similar in the 2 groups (7.7 in the intervention group and 7.6 in the control group). Physicians in the intervention group consulted the psychiatrist 9 times. The overall rate of referrals to psychiatrists and other mental health professionals was 10.9%; however, referrals were significantly higher in the intervention group (15.4% v. 3.5%, p = 0.05). After 6 months of follow-up, a significant difference in gain scores was detected between the intervention and control groups for both the patient's self-rated CES-D scores (mean gain score 19.3 v. 15.5 respectively, p = 0.04) and the physicians' ratings of depression severity before treatment and at 6 months (mean gain 1.1 v. 0.7 respectively, p = 0.02).
                The educational strategy had a modest beneficial effect on the outcomes of patients with depression, but there are still concerns regarding the low rates of drug treatment and referral to mental health professionals by family physicians. This study was done to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of individualized, problem-solving counseling provided by baccalaureate nurses over the telephone to prevent the onset of depression in persons with breast, lung, or prostate cancer. Of 175 persons randomized, 149 completed the 8-month follow-up. The primary outcome measures were changes in the Jalowiec Coping Scale, the Centre for Epidemiologic Studies in Depression Scale, and the Derogotis Psychosocial Adjustment to Illness Scale. In addition, expenditures for people's use of all health and social services were computed at baseline and follow-up. Telephone counseling improved the use of more favorable coping behaviors, prevented a clinically important but not statistically significant decline into depression, and poor psychosocial adjustment in a group of people with mixed cancer. These results were associated with a greater total per person per annum expenditure for use of all other health and social services in the community compared with the control group. In a situation of limited resources and a service producing more effect for more costs, one needs either to examine what services to forgo to offer this service or to carefully target the new service to those most likely to benefit.
There is substantial evidence that routinely administered case finding/screening questionnaires for depression have minimal impact on the detection, management or outcome of depression by clinicians. Practice guidelines and recommendations to adopt this strategy, in isolation, in order to improve the quality of healthcare should be resisted. The longer term benefits and costs of routine screening/case finding for depression have not been evaluated. A two stage procedure for screening/case finding may be effective, but this needs to be evaluated in a large scale cluster randomised trial, with a prospective economic evaluation.