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

The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ): a validation study of a multidimensional self-report questionnaire to assess distress, depression, anxiety and somatization

BACKGROUND: The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) is a self-report questionnaire that has been developed in primary care to distinguish non-specific general distress from depression, anxiety and somatization. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate its criterion and construct validity. METHODS: Data from 10 different primary care studies have been used. Criterion validity was assessed by comparing the 4DSQ scores with clinical diagnoses, the GPs' diagnosis of any psychosocial problem for Distress, standardised psychiatric diagnoses for Depression and Anxiety, and GPs' suspicion of somatization for Somatization. ROC analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to examine the associations. Construct validity was evaluated by investigating the inter-correlations between the scales, the factorial structure, the associations with other symptom questionnaires, and the associations with stress, personality and social functioning. The factorial structure of the 4DSQ was assessed through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The associations with other questionnaires were assessed with Pearson correlations and regression analyses. RESULTS: Regarding criterion validity, the Distress scale was associated with any psychosocial diagnosis (area under the ROC curve [AUC] 0.79), the Depression scale was associated with major depression (AUC = 0.83), the Anxiety scale was associated with anxiety disorder (AUC = 0.66), and the Somatization scale was associated with the GPs' suspicion of somatization (AUC = 0.65). Regarding the construct validity, the 4DSQ scales appeared to have considerable inter-correlations (r = 0.35-0.71). However, 30–40% of the variance of each scale was unique for that scale. CFA confirmed the 4-factor structure with a comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.92. The 4DSQ scales correlated with most other questionnaires measuring corresponding constructs. However, the 4DSQ Distress scale appeared to correlate with some other depression scales more than the 4DSQ Depression scale. Measures of stress (i.e. life events, psychosocial problems, and work stress) were mainly associated with Distress, while Distress, in turn, was mainly associated with psychosocial dysfunctioning, including sick leave. CONCLUSION: The 4DSQ seems to be a valid self-report questionnaire to measure distress, depression, anxiety and somatization in primary care patients. The 4DSQ Distress scale appears to measure the most general, most common, expression of psychological problems

Randomised controlled trial of a psychiatric consultation model for treatment of common mental disorder in the occupational health setting

BACKGROUND: Common mental disorders are the most prevalent of all mental disorders, with the highest burden in terms of work absenteeism and utilization of health care services. Evidence-based treatments are available, but recognition and treatment could be improved, especially in the occupational health setting. The situation in this setting has recently changed in the Netherlands because of new legislation, which has resulted in reduced sickness absence. Severe mental disorder has now become one of the main causes of work absenteeism. Occupational physicians (OPs) are expected to take an active role in diagnosis and treatment, and seem to be in need of support for a new approach to handle cases of more complex mental disorders. Psychiatric consultation can be a collaborative care model to achieve this. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a two-armed cluster-randomized clinical trial, with randomization among OPs. Forty OPs in two big companies providing medical care for multiple companies will be randomized to either the intervention group, i.e. psychiatric consultation embedded in a training programme, or the control group, i.e. only training aimed at recognition and providing Care As Usual. 60 patients will be included who have been absent from work for 6–52 weeks and who, after screening and a MINI interview, are diagnosed with depressive disorder, anxiety disorder or somatoform disorder based on DSM-IV criteria. Baseline measurements and follow up measurements (at 3 months and 6 months) will be assessed with questionnaires and an interview. The primary outcome measure is level of general functioning according to the SF-20. Secondary measures are severity of the mental disorder according to the PHQ and the SCL-90, quality of life (EQ-D5), measures of Return To Work and cost-effectiveness of the treatment assessed with the TiC-P. Process measures will be adherence to the treatment plan and assessment of the treatment provided by the Psychiatric Consultant (PC) in both groups. DISCUSSION: In the current study, a psychiatric consultation model that has already proved to be effective in the primary care setting, and aimed to enhance evidence-based care for patients with work absenteeism and common mental disorder will be evaluated for its efficacy and cost-effectiveness in the occupational health setting

Outcomes for depression and anxiety in primary care and details of treatment: a naturalistic longitudinal study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is little evidence as to whether or not guideline concordant care in general practice results in better clinical outcomes for people with anxiety and depression. This study aims to determine possible associations between guideline concordant care and clinical outcomes in general practice patients with depression and anxiety, and identify patient and treatment characteristics associated with clinical improvement.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study forms part of the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA).</p> <p>Adult patients, recruited in general practice (67 GPs), were interviewed to assess DSM-IV diagnoses during baseline assessment of NESDA, and also completed questionnaires measuring symptom severity, received care, socio-demographic variables and social support both at baseline and 12 months later. The definition of guideline adherence was based on an algorithm on care received. Information on guideline adherence was obtained from GP medical records.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>721 patients with a current (6-month recency) anxiety or depressive disorder participated. While patients who received guideline concordant care (N = 281) suffered from more severe symptoms than patients who received non-guideline concordant care (N = 440), both groups showed equal improvement in their depressive or anxiety symptoms after 12 months. Patients who (still) had moderate or severe symptoms at follow-up, were more often unemployed, had smaller personal networks and more severe depressive symptoms at baseline than patients with mild symptoms at follow-up. The particular type of treatment followed made no difference to clinical outcomes.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The added value of guideline concordant care could not be demonstrated in this study. Symptom severity, employment status, social support and comorbidity of anxiety and depression all play a role in poor clinical outcomes.</p

Depression and anxiety, an Indicated Prevention (DIP) protocol in homes for the elderly: feasibility and (cost) effectiveness of a stepped care programme

BACKGROUND: Depressive and anxiety disorders are a very common, serious and underdetected problem in homes for the elderly. Elderly persons in residential homes are at high risk for developing major depressive and anxiety disorders, and, therefore, deserve attention with regard to prevention. METHODS/DESIGN: This protocol describes a randomised trial on the feasibility and (cost) effectiveness of a stepped-care programme for prevention of depressive and anxiety disorders in homes for the elderly. The main outcome measure is the incidence of depressive and anxiety disorder in one year with a two years follow up. Secondary outcomes are symptoms of depression and anxiety, quality of life, direct health care costs and satisfaction with treatment. DISCUSSION: The number of studies examining the effects of preventive interventions on the incidence of mental disorders in the elderly population is very small. However, indicated prevention by means of a stepped-care programme seems to be an important option for decreasing the burden of illness for residents and their caregivers. This study contributes to the body of knowledge in this field. Positive effects may contribute to further use and development of tailored, (cost-) effective and easy to use interventions in a preventive stepped-care programme. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Dutch Cochrane Centre, ISRCTN2754073

Knowledge transfer and improvement of primary and ambulatory care for patients with anxiety.

Contains fulltext : 69560.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)OBJECTIVE: To summarize current evidence on the effectiveness of different knowledge transfer and change interventions for improving primary and ambulatory anxiety care to provide guidance to professionals and policy-makers in mental health care. METHOD: We searched electronic medical and psychological databases, conducted correspondence with authors, and checked reference lists. Studies examining the effectiveness of knowledge transfer and interventions targeted at improvement of the recognition or management of anxiety in primary and ambulatory health care settings were included. Methodological details and outcomes were independently extracted and checked by 2 reviewers. Where appropriate, data concerning the impact of interventions on symptoms of anxiety were pooled using metaanalytical procedures. RESULTS: We identified 24 studies that met our inclusion criteria. Seven professional-directed interventions and 17 organizational interventions (including patient-oriented interventions) were identified. The methodological quality of studies was variable. Professional-directed interventions only impact the process and outcome of care when embedded in some sort of organizational intervention. Metaanalysis (n = 8 studies) showed no effect of diverse organizational interventions on patients' anxiety symptoms (effect size, -0.08; 95% confidence interval, -0.31 to 0.15; P = 0.50). Collaborative care interventions proved to be the most effective organizational intervention strategies. Six studies reported economic results: 4 studies showed that intervention had a high probability of being cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care seems to be very promising for improving primary and ambulatory care for anxiety. At the level of management and policy, the results of this review mandate the need to offer fair and reasonable reimbursement for collaborative care programs