4. Managing depression in a community setting (original) (raw)
Related papers
Treatment of depression in general practice
British Medical Journal, 1973
With the cooperation of the family doctors in five selected urban general practices the general-practitioner treatment of 73 patients suffering from a new episode of depressive illness was evaluated over a period of four months. The purpose was to test the belief that general practitioners are best fitted to manage most psychological ailments, and depression was chosen as the psychiatric illness most commonly seen in general practice. Medication was the principal treatment offered, and this was often inadequate in dosage or the patient defaulted. Drug defaulting was thought to be due partly to failure of supervision and follow-up and to too low a consultation rate. The low consultation rate was also thought to explain why few patients thought there was a therapeutic value in the doctorpatient relationship. The results of the study indicate that patients with depressive illness do not receive the best treatment in general practice. The reasons are several and responsibility must be shared by the medical practitioners, the current system of the general practice, and the patients themselves.
BMC family practice, 2006
Little is known about depressed patients' profiles and how they are managed. The aim of the study is to compare GPs and psychiatrists for 1 degrees) sociodemographic and clinical profile of their patients considered as depressed 2 degrees) patterns of care provision. The study design is an observational cross-sectional study on a random sample of GPs and psychiatrists working in France. Consecutive inclusion of patients seen in consultation considered as depressed by the physician. GPs enrolled 6,104 and psychiatrists 1,433 patients. sociodemographics, psychiatric profile, environmental risk factors of depression and treatment. All clinical data were collected by participating physicians; there was no direct independent clinical assessment of patients to check the diagnosis of depressive disorder. Compared to patients identified as depressed by GPs, those identified by psychiatrists were younger, more often urban (10.5% v 5.4% - OR = 2.4), educated (42.4% v 25.4% - OR = 3.9), me...
BMC family practice, 2005
The way GPs work does not appear to be adapted to the needs of depressive patients. Therefore we wanted to examine Swedish GPs' conceptions of depressive disorders and their treatment and GPs' ideas of factors that may influence their manner of work with depressive patients. A postal questionnaire to a stratified sample of 617 Swedish GPs. Most respondents assumed antidepressive drugs effective and did not assume that psychotherapy can replace drugs in depression treatment though many of them looked at psychotherapy as an essential complement. Nearly all respondents thought that clinical experiences had great importance in decision situations, but patients' own preferences and official clinical guidelines were also regarded as essential. As influences on their work, almost all surveyed GPs regarded experiences from general practice very important, and a majority also emphasised experiences from private life. Courses arranged by pharmaceutical companies were seen as essen...
Journal of Affective Disorders, 2008
Background: Minor depression is common in primary care and associated with increased health care costs. Many mildly depressed patients are prescribed antidepressants, although there is insufficient information on the cost-effectiveness of antidepressants for these patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether usual care without antidepressants is equivalent to (i.e. as effective as and as expensive as) usual care with antidepressants in patients with minor or mild-major depression. Methods: Severity of depression was measured using the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and qualityadjusted life-years (QALYs) using the EuroQol. Resource use was measured from a societal perspective using cost diaries. Bootstrapping was used to analyze the cost-effectiveness data. Results: Equivalence could not be shown for improvement in MADRS score or QALYs gained at 52 weeks. The mean (95% CI) difference in total costs between usual care without antidepressants and usual care with antidepressants was −€751 (−3601; 1522). Using an equivalence margin of €500 equivalence in costs could not be shown. In the cost-effectiveness analyses equivalence also could not be shown. Limitations: This study was underpowered for economic outcomes. Another limitation was the loss-to-follow-up. Conclusions: Although equivalence could not be shown in the costs and cost-effectiveness analyses, 95% confidence intervals also did not show that usual care without antidepressants was vastly superior or inferior to usual care with antidepressants. Therefore, we recommend general practitioners to show restraint when prescribing antidepressants to mildly depressed patients.
The course of depressive illness in general practice
Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie, 2004
Depression is reported to be common in primary care settings and to have a high likelihood of relapse during the 4- to 6-month period following initial symptomatic improvement. However, most prospective studies of long-term treatment of depression have been conducted with patients selected for participation in placebo-controlled drug protocols or psychiatric clinics associated with tertiary referral centres. We examined the treatment course and outcome of outpatients with major depressive episode treated in a primary care setting. The general practitioners were free to choose the treatment and its duration. Their only obligation was to assess the therapeutic outcome in terms of efficacy and safety and to perform a final evaluation at the end of the 6-month observation period or, if the patient was treated for a shorter period, at the end of the treatment. Of the 476 patients involved, 308 (64.7%) responded to treatment and remained well, 117 (24.6%) showed no response, and 51 (10.7%...
PLoS ONE, 2012
In developed countries, primary care physicians manage most patients with depression. Relatively few studies allow a comprehensive assessment of the decisions these doctors make in these cases and the factors associated with these decisions. We studied how general practitioners (GPs) manage the acute phase of a new episode of non-comorbid major depression (MD) and the factors associated with their decisions. In this cross-sectional telephone survey, professional investigators interviewed an existing panel of randomly selected GPs (1249/1431, response rate: 87.3%). We used case-vignettes about new MD episodes in 8 versions differing by patient gender and socioeconomic status (blue/white collar) and disease intensity (mild/severe). GPs were randomized to receive one of these 8 versions. Overall, 82.6% chose pharmacotherapy; among them GPs chose either an antidepressant (79.8%) or an anxiolytic/hypnotic alone (18.5%). They rarely recommended referral for psychotherapy alone, regardless of severity, but 38.2% chose it in combination with pharmacotherapy. Antidepressant prescription was associated with severity of depression (OR = 1.74; 95%CI = 1.33-2.27), patient gender (female, OR = 0.75; 95%CI = 0.58-0.98), GP personal characteristics (e.g. history of antidepressant treatment: OR = 2.31; 95%CI = 1.41-3.81) and GP belief that antidepressants are overprescribed in France (OR = 0.63; 95%CI = 0.48-0.82). The combination of antidepressants and psychotherapy was associated with severity of depression (OR = 1.82; 95%CI = 1.31-2.52), patient's white-collar status (OR = 1.58; 95%CI = 1.14-2.18), and GPs' dissatisfaction with cooperation with mental health specialists (OR = 0.63; 95%CI = 0.45-0.89). These choices were not associated with either GPs' professional characteristics or psychiatrist density in the GP's practice areas. GPs' choices for treating severe MD complied with clinical guidelines better than those for mild MD; GPs rarely recommended psychotherapy alone but rather as a complement to pharmacotherapy. Their decisions were mainly influenced by personal life experience and attitudes regarding treatment more than by professional characteristics. These results call into question the methods and content of continuing medical education in France about MD management.
Antidepressant treatment in general practice - An interview study
Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care, 1995
Objective-To elucidate potential problems concerning the use of antidepressants (AD) in general practice. Design-Cross-sectional, descriptive interview study. Setting-General practices, Odense, Denmark. Subjects-Random sample consisting of 98 AD users from 12 general practices. Main outcome measures-Indication for AD treatment, justification of the treatment, duration of AD treatment, daily dose of AD, side effects, Hamilton depression rating, WONCA score. Results-The primary indication for AD treatment was depression (72 patients), partly regular depression (therapeutic/prophylactic treatment) (n=39), partly depressive tendencies (n=32) (1 unknown). Median treatment duration was 3 years; 25% had been in treatment for more than 10 years. The general practitioners judged the treatment problematic/unacceptable in 23 cases, largely because of uncertain indication or because other or no treatment was considered better for the patient. The daily doses of AD were generally low. Side effects were modest. The patients often had a relatively high depression score and poor status according to the WONCA-scale. Conclusions-The use of low doses, long duration of treatment, and uncertainty about the relevance of the treatment are important features of the use of AD by general practitioners. There seems to be a discrepancy between the use of AD in general practice and the scientifically-based recommendations.
Journal of Affective Disorders, 2014
Background: The treatment of depression in primary care remains suboptimal for reasons that are complex and multifactorial. Typically GPs have to make difficult decisions in limited time and therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the management of depression of varying severity and the factors associated with treatment choices. Method: Nested within a primary care educational initiative we conducted a survey of 1760 GPs. The GPs each identified four patients with clinical depression whom they had treated recently and then answered questions regarding their diagnosis and management of each patient. Results: Comorbid anxiety, sadness and decreased concentration appeared to direct the management of depression toward psychological therapy, whereas comorbid pain and a patient's overall functioning, such as the ability to do simple everyday activities, directed the initiation of pharmacological treatment. The use of antidepressants with a broader spectrum of actions (acting on multiple neurotransmitters) increased from mild to severe depression, whereas this did not occur with the more selective agents. SSRIs were prescribed more frequently compared with all other antidepressants, irrespective of depression severity. Limitations: GPs chose the RADAR programme and therefore they were potentially more likely to have an interest in mental health compared to GPs who did not participate. Conclusions: GPs do not appear to be determining pharmacological treatment based on depression subtype and specificity, but rather on the basis of the total number of symptoms and overall severity. While acknowledging important differences between primary care and specialist practice, it is suggested that guidelines to assist GPs in matching treatment to depression subtype may be of practical assistance in decision-making, and the delivery of more effective treatments.
Antidepressants: general practitioners' opinions and clinical practice
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 2006
a representative sample of French GPs was asked their opinion of the 15 most prescribed antidepressants, and then to describe the treatments of the current depressive episode of four depressive patients each, their changes and the reasons thereof. Results: One hundred and eighty-one GPs and 778 patients participated. The best-ranked antidepressants by the GPs were paroxetine, fluoxetine, sertraline and clomipramine for efficacy, and paroxetine, tianeptine, sertraline and fluoxetine for tolerability. In patients, the drugs most often prescribed were fluoxetine, paroxetine, and sertraline. Those least often stopped for intolerance were moclobemide (0%), dosulepine (0%), venlafaxine (4.5%) and citalopram (5.0%), and maprotiline (0%), citalopram (1.7%) and venlafaxine (2.3%) for lack of efficacy. The best predictor for prescription of antidepressants was the GPsÕ overall ranking, itself depending on opinions of the tolerability and efficacy of the drug. However, opinions of tolerability and efficacy were not related to the rates of treatment discontinuation for intolerability or inefficacy.
BMJ, 2009
Objective To determine if general practitioner rates of antidepressant drug prescribing and referrals to specialist services for depression vary in line with patients' scores on depression severity questionnaires. Design Analysis of anonymised medical record data. Setting 38 general practices in three sites-Southampton, Liverpool, and Norfolk. Data reviewed Records for 2294 patients assessed with severity questionnaires for depression between April 2006 and March 2007 inclusive. Main outcome measures Rates of prescribing of antidepressants and referrals to specialist mental health or social services. Results 1658 patients were assessed with the 9 item patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9), 584 with the depression subscale of the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS), and 52 with the Beck depression inventory, 2nd edition (BDI-II). Overall, 79.1% of patients assessed with either PHQ-9 or HADS received a prescription for an antidepressant, and 22.8% were referred to specialist services. Prescriptions and referrals were significantly associated with higher severity scores. However, overall rates of treatment and referral were similar for patients assessed with either measure despite the fact that, with PHQ-9, 83.5% of patients were classified as moderately to severely depressed and in need of treatment, whereas only 55.6% of patients were so classified with HADS. Rates of treatment were lower for older patients and for patients with comorbid physical illness (including coronary heart disease and diabetes) despite the fact that screening for depression among such patients is encouraged in the quality and outcomes framework. Conclusions General practitioners do not decide on drug treatment or referral for depression on the basis of questionnaire scores alone, but also take account of other factors such as age and physical illness. The two most widely used severity questionnaires perform inconsistently in practice, suggesting that changing the recommended threshold scores for intervention might make the measures more valid, more consistent with practitioners' clinical judgment, and more acceptable to practitioners as a way of classifying patients.