Is the beck anxiety inventory a good tool to assess the severity of anxiety? A primary care study in The Netherlands study of depression and anxiety (NESDA)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Appropriate management of anxiety disorders in primary care requires clinical assessment and monitoring of the severity of the anxiety. This study focuses on the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) as a severity indicator for anxiety in primary care patients with different anxiety disorders (social phobia, panic disorder with or without agoraphobia, agoraphobia or generalized anxiety disorder), depressive disorders or no disorder (controls).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Participants were 1601 primary care patients participating in the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). Regression analyses were used to compare the mean BAI scores of the different diagnostic groups and to correct for age and gender.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Patients with any anxiety disorder had a significantly higher mean score than the controls. A significantly higher score was found for patients with panic disorder and agoraphobia compared to patients with agoraphobia only or social phobia only. BAI scores in patients with an anxiety disorder with a co-morbid anxiety disorder and in patients with an anxiety disorder with a co-morbid depressive disorder were significantly higher than BAI scores in patients with an anxiety disorder alone or patients with a depressive disorder alone. Depressed and anxious patients did not differ significantly in their mean scores.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The results suggest that the BAI may be used as a severity indicator of anxiety in primary care patients with different anxiety disorders. However, because the instrument seems to reflect the severity of depression as well, it is not a suitable instrument to discriminate between anxiety and depression in a primary care population.</p

Collaborative stepped care for anxiety disorders in primary care: aims and design of a randomized controlled trial

Background. Panic disorder (PD) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) are two of the most disabling and costly anxiety disorders seen in primary care. However, treatment quality of these disorders in primary care generally falls beneath the standard of international guidelines. Collaborative stepped care is recommended for improving treatment of anxiety disorders, but cost-effectiveness of such an intervention has not yet been assessed in primary care. This article describes the aims and design of a study that is currently underway. The aim of this study is to evaluate effects and costs of a collaborative stepped care approach in the primary care setting for patients with PD and GAD compared with care as usual. Methods/design. The study is a two armed, cluster randomized controlled trial. Care managers and their primary care practices will be randomized to deliver either collaborative stepped care (CSC) or care as usual (CAU). In the CSC group a general practitioner, care manager and psychiatrist work together in a collaborative care framework. Stepped care is provided in three steps: 1) guided self-help, 2) cognitive behavioral therapy and 3) antidepressant medication. Primary care patients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of PD and/or GAD will be included. 134 completers are needed to attain sufficient power to show a clinically significant effect of 1/2 SD on the primary outcome measure, the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI). Data on anxiety symptoms, mental and physical health, quality of life, health resource use and productivity will be collected at baseline and after three, six, nine and twelve months. Discussion. It is hypothesized that the collaborative stepped care intervention will be more cost-effective than care as usual. The pragmatic design of this study will enable the researchers to evaluate what is possible in real clinical practice, rather than under ideal circumstances. Many requirements for a high quality trial are being met. Results of this study will contribute to treatment options for GAD and PD in the primary care setting. Results will become available in 2011. Trial registration. NTR1071

Evaluation of a Blended Relapse Prevention Program for Anxiety and Depression in General Practice: Qualitative Study

Background: Existing studies have yet to investigate the perspectives of patients and professionals concerning relapse prevention programs for patients with remitted anxiety or depressive disorders in primary care. User opinions should be considered when optimizing the use and implementation of interventions. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the GET READY relapse prevention programs for patients with remitted anxiety or depressive disorders in general practice. Methods: Semistructured interviews (N=26) and focus group interviews (N=2) with patients and mental health professionals (MHPs) in the Netherlands were performed. Patients with remitted anxiety or depressive disorders and their MHPs who participated in the GET READY study were interviewed individually. Findings from the interviews were tested in focus group interviews with patients and MHPs. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Participants were positive about the program because it created awareness of relapse risks. Lack of motivation, lack of recognizability, lack of support from the MHP, and symptom severity (too low or too high) appeared to be limiting factors in the use of the program. MHPs play a crucial role in motivating and supporting patients in relapse prevention. The perspectives of patients and MHPs were largely in accordance, although they had different perspectives concerning responsibilities for taking initiative. Conclusions: The implementation of the GET READY program was challenging. Guidance from MHPs should be offered for relapse prevention programs based on eHealth. Both MHPs and patients should align their expectations concerning responsibilities in advance to ensure optimal usage. Usage of blended relapse prevention programs may be further enhanced by diagnosis-specific programs and easily accessible support from MHPs

Evaluatie van een blended terugvalpreventie programma voor angst en depressie in de huisartsenpraktijk: kwalitatieve studie

Samenvatting Doel: Het evalueren van het GET READY-terugvalpreventieprogramma voor patiënten met herstelde angst- of depressieve stoornissen in de huisartsenpraktijk. Methode: Er werden semigestructureerde interviews (n = 26) en focusgroepinterviews (n = 2) gehouden met patiënten en praktijkondersteuners huisarts GGZ (POH-GGZ). Patiënten met herstelde angst- of depressieve stoornissen en hun POH-GGZ die deelnamen aan de GET READY-studie werden individueel geïnterviewd. Bevindingen uit de interviews werden getoetst in focusgroepinterviews met patiënten en POH-GGZ. Data werden geanalyseerd door het toepassen van thematische analyse. Resultaat: Patiënten waren positief over het programma omdat het bewustwording creëerde over terugvalrisico’s. Een gebrek aan motivatie, herkenbaarheid en steun van de POH-GGZ, samen met ernst van symptomen waren belemmerend in het gebruik van het programma. POH-GGZ spelen een onmisbare rol in het motiveren en steunen van patiënten bij terugvalpreventie. Opvattingen van patiënten en POH-GGZ kwamen grotendeels overeen, wel hadden zij andere opvattingen over de verantwoordelijkheid qua initiatief nemen. Discussie: De implementatie van het GET READY programma was uitdagend. Begeleiding door de POH-GGZ moet bij terugvalpreventieprogramma’s worden aangeboden op basis van eHealth. Conclusie: Begeleiding door de POH-GGZ moet bij terugvalpreventieprogramma’s, die gebaseerd zijn op eHealth, worden aangeboden

Usage Intensity of a Relapse Prevention Program and Its Relation to Symptom Severity in Remitted Patients With Anxiety and Depression: Pre-Post Study

Background: Given that relapse is common in patients in remission from anxiety and depressive disorders, relapse prevention is needed in the maintenance phase. Although existing psychological relapse prevention interventions have proven to be effective, they are not explicitly based on patients’ preferences. Hence, we developed a blended relapse prevention program based on patients’ preferences, which was delivered in primary care practices by mental health professionals (MHPs). This program comprises contact with MHPs, completion of core and optional online modules (including a relapse prevention plan), and keeping a mood and anxiety diary in which patients can monitor their symptoms. Objective: The aims of this study were to provide insight into (1) usage intensity of the program (over time), (2) the course of symptoms during the 9 months of the study, and (3) the association between usage intensity and the course of symptoms. Methods: The Guided E-healTh for RElapse prevention in Anxiety and Depression (GET READY) program was guided by 54 MHPs working in primary care practices. Patients in remission from anxiety and depressive disorders were included. Demographic and clinical characteristics, including anxiety and depressive symptoms, were collected via questionnaires at baseline and after 3, 6, and 9 months. Log data were collected to assess the usage intensity of the program. Results: A total of 113 patients participated in the study. Twenty-seven patients (23.9%) met the criteria for the minimal usage intensity measure. The core modules were used by ≥70% of the patients, while the optional modules were used by <40% of the patients. Usage decreased quickly over time. Anxiety and depressive symptoms remained stable across the total sample; a minority of 15% (12/79) of patients experienced a relapse in their anxiety symptoms, while 10% (8/79) experienced a relapse in their depressive symptoms. Generalized estimating equations analysis indicated a significant association between more frequent face-to-face contact with the MHPs and an increase in both anxiety symptoms (β=.84, 95% CI .39-1.29) and depressive symptoms (β=1.12, 95% CI 0.45-1.79). Diary entries and the number of completed modules were not significantly associated with the course of symptoms