Use of a personalised depression intervention in primary care to prevent anxiety: a secondary study of a cluster randomised trial

Background: In the predictD-intervention, GPs used a personalised biopsychosocial programme to prevent depression. This reduced the incidence of major depression by 21.0%, although the results were not statistically significant. Aim: To determine whether the predictD-intervention is effective at preventing anxiety in primary care patients without depression or anxiety. Design and setting: Secondary study of a cluster randomised trial with practices randomly assigned to either the predictD-intervention or usual care. This study was conducted in seven Spanish cities from October 2010 to July 2012. Method: In each city, 10 practices and two GPs per practice, as well as four to six patients every recruiting day, were randomly selected until there were 26–27 eligible patients for each GP. The endpoint was cumulative incidence of anxiety as measured by the PRIME-MD screening tool over 18 months. Results: A total of 3326 patients without depression and 140 GPs from 70 practices consented and were eligible to participate; 328 of these patients were removed because they had an anxiety syndrome at baseline. Of the 2998 valid patients, 2597 (86.6%) were evaluated at the end of the study. At 18 months, 10.4% (95% CI = 8.7% to 12.1%) of the patients in the predictD-intervention group developed anxiety compared with 13.1% (95% CI = 11.4% to 14.8%) in the usual-care group (absolute difference = −2.7% [95% CI = −5.1% to −0.3%]; P = 0.029). Conclusion: A personalised intervention delivered by GPs for the prevention of depression provided a modest but statistically significant reduction in the incidence of anxiety

Preventing the onset of major depression based on the level and profile of risk of primary care attendees: protocol of a cluster randomised trial (the predictD-CCRT study)

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: 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

Initial Responses of Different Health Care Professionals to Various Patients with Headache:Which are Perceived as Difficult?

<p>Background Somatizing patients are considered a challenge to health care professionals.</p><p>Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the responses of different health care professionals' to patients with headache with different presentations.</p><p>Method Medical professionals (n=77), clinical psychologists (n=40), and psychology students (n=115) were shown with four different manifestations of headache (neutral, somatic trauma, anxious-depressed, and severe somatizing). Health professionals rated their initial cognitive and emotional responses using a standardized questionnaire.</p><p>Results The severe somatizing and anxious-depressed patients with headache evoked significantly more negative cognitive and emotional responses in all three samples. Even brief exposure to a patient's story yields specific initial responses from various health care professionals irrespective of their disciplines.</p><p>Conclusion Patients with headache and with a distressed presentation evoke significantly more negative cognitive and emotional responses in different health care professionals. Health care professionals should be more aware of their own response to difficult patients; in this way they will be more capable of managing this patient group.</p>