55
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Clinical effectiveness of collaborative care for depression in UK primary care (CADET): cluster randomised controlled trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective To compare the clinical effectiveness of collaborative care with usual care in the management of patients with moderate to severe depression.

          Design Cluster randomised controlled trial.

          Setting 51 primary care practices in three primary care districts in the United Kingdom.

          Participants 581 adults aged 18 years and older who met ICD-10 (international classification of diseases, 10th revision) criteria for a depressive episode on the revised Clinical Interview Schedule. We excluded acutely suicidal patients and those with psychosis, or with type I or type II bipolar disorder; patients whose low mood was associated with bereavement or whose primary presenting problem was alcohol or drug abuse; and patients receiving psychological treatment for their depression by specialist mental health services. We identified potentially eligible participants by searching computerised case records in general practices for patients with depression.

          Interventions Collaborative care, including depression education, drug management, behavioural activation, relapse prevention, and primary care liaison, was delivered by care managers. Collaborative care involved six to 12 contacts with participants over 14 weeks, supervised by mental health specialists. Usual care was family doctors’ standard clinical practice.

          Main outcome measures Depression symptoms (patient health questionnaire 9; PHQ-9), anxiety (generalised anxiety disorder 7; GAD-7), and quality of life (short form 36 questionnaire; SF-36) at four and 12 months; satisfaction with service quality (client satisfaction questionnaire; CSQ-8) at four months.

          Results 276 participants were allocated to collaborative care and 305 allocated to usual care. At four months, mean depression score was 11.1 (standard deviation 7.3) for the collaborative care group and 12.7 (6.8) for the usual care group. After adjustment for baseline depression, mean depression score was 1.33 PHQ-9 points lower (95% confidence interval 0.35 to 2.31, P=0.009) in participants receiving collaborative care than in those receiving usual care at four months, and 1.36 points lower (0.07 to 2.64, P=0.04) at 12 months. Quality of mental health but not physical health was significantly better for collaborative care than for usual care at four months, but not 12 months. Anxiety did not differ between groups. Participants receiving collaborative care were significantly more satisfied with treatment than those receiving usual care. The number needed to treat for one patient to drop below the accepted diagnostic threshold for depression on the PHQ-9 was 8.4 immediately after treatment, and 6.5 at 12 months.

          Conclusions Collaborative care has persistent positive effects up to 12 months after initiation of the intervention and is preferred by patients over usual care.

          Trial registration number ISRCTN32829227.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7.

          Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common mental disorders; however, there is no brief clinical measure for assessing GAD. The objective of this study was to develop a brief self-report scale to identify probable cases of GAD and evaluate its reliability and validity. A criterion-standard study was performed in 15 primary care clinics in the United States from November 2004 through June 2005. Of a total of 2740 adult patients completing a study questionnaire, 965 patients had a telephone interview with a mental health professional within 1 week. For criterion and construct validity, GAD self-report scale diagnoses were compared with independent diagnoses made by mental health professionals; functional status measures; disability days; and health care use. A 7-item anxiety scale (GAD-7) had good reliability, as well as criterion, construct, factorial, and procedural validity. A cut point was identified that optimized sensitivity (89%) and specificity (82%). Increasing scores on the scale were strongly associated with multiple domains of functional impairment (all 6 Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form General Health Survey scales and disability days). Although GAD and depression symptoms frequently co-occurred, factor analysis confirmed them as distinct dimensions. Moreover, GAD and depression symptoms had differing but independent effects on functional impairment and disability. There was good agreement between self-report and interviewer-administered versions of the scale. The GAD-7 is a valid and efficient tool for screening for GAD and assessing its severity in clinical practice and research.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure.

            While considerable attention has focused on improving the detection of depression, assessment of severity is also important in guiding treatment decisions. Therefore, we examined the validity of a brief, new measure of depression severity. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) is a self-administered version of the PRIME-MD diagnostic instrument for common mental disorders. The PHQ-9 is the depression module, which scores each of the 9 DSM-IV criteria as "0" (not at all) to "3" (nearly every day). The PHQ-9 was completed by 6,000 patients in 8 primary care clinics and 7 obstetrics-gynecology clinics. Construct validity was assessed using the 20-item Short-Form General Health Survey, self-reported sick days and clinic visits, and symptom-related difficulty. Criterion validity was assessed against an independent structured mental health professional (MHP) interview in a sample of 580 patients. As PHQ-9 depression severity increased, there was a substantial decrease in functional status on all 6 SF-20 subscales. Also, symptom-related difficulty, sick days, and health care utilization increased. Using the MHP reinterview as the criterion standard, a PHQ-9 score > or =10 had a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 88% for major depression. PHQ-9 scores of 5, 10, 15, and 20 represented mild, moderate, moderately severe, and severe depression, respectively. Results were similar in the primary care and obstetrics-gynecology samples. In addition to making criteria-based diagnoses of depressive disorders, the PHQ-9 is also a reliable and valid measure of depression severity. These characteristics plus its brevity make the PHQ-9 a useful clinical and research tool.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The hospital anxiety and depression scale.

              A self-assessment scale has been developed and found to be a reliable instrument for detecting states of depression and anxiety in the setting of an hospital medical outpatient clinic. The anxiety and depressive subscales are also valid measures of severity of the emotional disorder. It is suggested that the introduction of the scales into general hospital practice would facilitate the large task of detection and management of emotional disorder in patients under investigation and treatment in medical and surgical departments.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: professor
                Role: PhD student
                Role: professor
                Role: professor
                Role: professor
                Role: professor
                Role: head of psychology
                Role: professor
                Role: professor
                Role: consultant senior lecturer
                Role: professor
                Role: professor
                Role: professor
                Role: professor
                Role: public and patient advocate
                Role: research fellow
                Role: professor
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                bmj
                BMJ : British Medical Journal
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2013
                2013
                19 August 2013
                : 347
                : f4913
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter EX1 2LU, UK
                [2 ]School of Psychology, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
                [3 ]Centre for Primary Care, Institute of Population Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Williamson building, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
                [4 ]University of Manchester, School of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, Jean McFarlane Building, Manchester, UK
                [5 ]Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Primary Care Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
                [6 ]NIHR School for Primary Care Research, Centre for Primary Care, Institute of Population Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, UK
                [7 ]Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK
                [8 ]School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
                [9 ]Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK
                [10 ]Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, UK
                [11 ]Mental Health Research Group, Department of Health Sciences and Hull York Medical School, University of York, UK
                [12 ]Mental Health Sciences Unit, University College London, UK
                [13 ]Upstream Healthcare, Teddington, UK
                [14 ]Centre for Psychological Services Research, Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: D A Richards d.a.richards@ 123456exeter.ac.uk
                Article
                ricd011955
                10.1136/bmj.f4913
                3746956
                23959152
                758275b9-1d7a-477c-94bb-3c0f8ea2debd
                © Richards et al 2013

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/.

                History
                : 26 July 2013
                Categories
                Research
                1778

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content82

                Cited by95