Family physicians' views on participating in prevention of major depression. The predictD-EVAL qualitative study

Background The predictD intervention, a multicomponent intervention delivered by family physicians (FPs), reduced the incidence of major depression by 21% versus the control group and was cost-effective. A qualitative methodology was proposed to identify the mechanisms of action of these complex interventions. Purpose To seek the opinions of these FPs on the potential successful components of the predictD intervention for the primary prevention of depression in primary care and to identify areas for improvement. Method Qualitative study with FPs who delivered the predictD intervention at 35 urban primary care centres in seven Spanish cities. Face-to-face semi-structured interviews adopting a phenomenological approach. The data was triangulated by three investigators using thematic analysis and respondent validation was carried out. Results Sixty-seven FPs were interviewed and they indicated strategies used to perform the predictD intervention, including specific communication skills such as empathy and the activation of patient resources. They perceived barriers such as lack of time and facilitators such as prior acquaintance with patients. FPs recognized the positive consequences of the intervention for FPs, patients and the doctor-patient relationship. They also identified strategies for future versions and implementations of the predictD intervention. Conclusions The FPs who carried out the predictD intervention identified factors potentially associated with successful prevention using this program and others that could be improved. Their opinions about the predictD intervention will enable development of a more effective and acceptable version and its implementation in different primary health care settings

A personalized intervention to prevent depression in primary care: cost-effectiveness study nested into a clustered randomized trial

Background: Depression is viewed as a major and increasing public health issue, as it causes high distress in the people experiencing it and considerable financial costs to society. Efforts are being made to reduce this burden by preventing depression. A critical component of this strategy is the ability to assess the individual level and profile of risk for the development of major depression. This paper presents the cost-effectiveness of a personalized intervention based on the risk of developing depression carried out in primary care, compared with usual care. Methods: Cost-effectiveness analyses are nested within a multicentre, clustered, randomized controlled trial of a personalized intervention to prevent depression. The study was carried out in 70 primary care centres from seven cities in Spain. Two general practitioners (GPs) were randomly sampled from those prepared to participate in each centre (i.e. 140 GPs), and 3326 participants consented and were eligible to participate. The intervention included the GP communicating to the patient his/her individual risk for depression and personal risk factors and the construction by both GPs and patients of a psychosocial programme tailored to prevent depression. In addition, GPs carried out measures to activate and empower the patients, who also received a leaflet about preventing depression. GPs were trained in a 10- to 15-h workshop. Costs were measured from a societal and National Health care perspective. Qualityadjustedlife years were assessed using the EuroQOL five dimensions questionnaire. The time horizon was 18 months. Results: With a willingness-to-pay threshold of (sic)10, 000 ((sic)8568) the probability of cost-effectiveness oscillated from 83% (societal perspective) to 89% (health perspective). If the threshold was increased to (sic)30, 000 ((sic)25, 704), the probability of being considered cost-effective was 94% (societal perspective) and 96%, respectively (health perspective). The sensitivity analysis confirmed these results. Conclusions: Compared with usual care, an intervention based on personal predictors of risk of depression implemented by GPs is a cost-effective strategy to prevent depression. This type of personalized intervention in primary care should be further developed and evaluated

Health-economic evaluation of psychological interventions for depression prevention: Systematic review

Psychological interventions have been proven to be effective to prevent depression, however, little is known on the cost-effectiveness of psychological interventions for the prevention of depression in various populations. A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Econlit, NHS Economic Evaluations Database, NHS Health Technology Assessment and OpenGrey up to January 2021. Only health-economic evaluations based on randomized controlled trials of psychological interventions to prevent depression were included. Independent evaluators selected studies, extracted data and assessed the quality using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Twelve trial-based economic evaluations including 5929 participants from six different countries met the inclusion criteria. Overall, the quality of most economic evaluations was considered good, but some studies have some risk of bias. Setting the willingness-to-pay upper limit to US$40,000 (2018 prices) for gaining one quality adjusted life year (QALY), eight psychological preventive interventions were likely to be cost-effective compared to care as usual. The likelihood of preventive psychological interventions being more cost-effective than care as usual looks promising, but more economic evaluations are needed to bridge the many gaps that remain in the evidence-base. Ethics: As this systematic review is based on published data, approval from the local ethics committee was not required