Do general practitioners and psychiatrists agree about defining cure from depression? The DEsCRIBE™ survey

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to document the outcome dimensions that physicians see as important in defining cure from depression. The study also aimed to analyse physicians' attitudes about depression and to find out whether they affect their prescribing practices and/or the outcome dimensions that they view as important in defining cure. METHODS: A 51-item questionnaire based on six validated scales was used to rate the importance of several depression outcome dimensions. Physicians' attitudes about depression were also assessed using the Depression Attitude Scale. Overall, 369 Belgian physicians (264 general practitioners [GPs]; 105 psychiatrists) participated in the DEsCRIBE survey. RESULTS: GPs and psychiatrists strongly agreed that functioning and depressive symptomatology were most important in defining cure; anxious and somatic symptomatology was least important. GPs and psychiatrists differed in their attitudes about depression (p <0.001). Logistic regression revealed that the attitudes of GPs - but not psychiatrists - were significantly associated with their rates of antidepressant prescription (p < 0.001) and that certain attitudes predicted which outcome dimensions were seen as important in defining cure. CONCLUSIONS: Belgian GPs and psychiatrists strongly agreed on which criteria were important in defining cure from depression but differed in their attitudes about depression. The outcome dimensions that were considered important in defining cure were influenced by physicians' attitudes - this was more pronounced in GPs than in psychiatrists

Reconceptualising treatment-resistant depression as difficult-to-treat depression

We are heartened that our consensus statement1 on difficult-to-treat depression has provoked robust debate. As pointed out by Lisa Cosgrove and colleagues,2 our proposed definition and model of care for difficult-to-treat depression is not derived from a systematic review or a Delphi technique. The term difficult-to-treat depression had previously been proposed to address semantic and conceptual issues with the so-called treatment-resistant depression model, for patients where achieving sustained remission proves elusive.3 We aimed to extend the discussion regarding this proposal, focusing on practical clinical advice. As the concept of difficult-to-treat depression is new, there is no literature to systematically review. The literature around the management of so-called treatment-resistant depression has been reviewed on many occasions, but this literature was only of partial relevance to our aims. Not only is there no universally accepted definition of treatment-resistant depression, but those that are used rarely if ever take into account psychotherapeutic or neurostimulatory treatments, or how to account for differential efficacy among treatments.4, 5 At the core of the proposed difficult-to-treat depression model is the importance of taking a holistic approach and considering all treatment options available. A systematic review of all treatments for depression was not practical. As a result, our consensus was based on the culmination of extensive discussion and deliberation among 15 international experts in the management of depression from across three continents, and the national guidelines for the treatment of depression from the countries represented. Rather than through a Delphi technique, we arrived at a consensus through many iterative reviews of the manuscript until all 15 contributors were comfortable with all the statements being discussed. However, we wish to clarify two key points that we feel Cosgrove and colleagues might have misunderstood

Is traumatic stress research global? A bibliometric analysis.

BACKGROUND: The representation of low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) in traumatic stress research is important to establish a global evidence base, build research capacity, and reduce the burden of unmet mental health needs around the world. Reviews of the traumatic stress literature up to 2002 showed trends toward globalization although LMIC were only marginally represented compared to high-income countries (HIC). OBJECTIVE: To examine the global nature of current traumatic stress research. In particular, we were interested in the extent to which traumatic stress research is: (1) conducted in LMIC, (2) conducted by LMIC researchers, and (3) accessible to them. METHOD: Using the databases PubMed, PsychInfo, and PILOTS, we systematically searched for peer-reviewed articles on traumatic stress published in any language in the year 2012. Out of the 3,123 unique papers identified, we coded a random sample (N=1,000) for study, author, article, and journal characteristics. RESULTS: Although our sample involved research in 56 different countries, most papers (87%) involved research in HIC, with 51% of all papers describing studies in the United States. In 88% of the papers, the author team was affiliated with HIC only. Less than 5% of all author teams involved collaborations between HIC and LMIC researchers. Moreover, 45% of the articles on LMIC studies published by a HIC corresponding author did not involve any LMIC co-authors. LMIC researchers appeared to publish empirical studies in lower impact journals. Of the 1,000 articles in our sample, 32% were open access and 10% were made available via different means; over half of the papers were not accessible without subscription. CONCLUSIONS: Traumatic stress research is increasingly global but still strongly dominated by HIC. Important opportunities to build capacity in LMIC appear to be missed. Implications toward more international traumatic stress research are discussed

Early reduction in painful physical symptoms is associated with improvements in long-term depression outcomes in patients treated with duloxetine

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To investigate the association of the change of painful physical symptoms (PPS) after 4 weeks, with the 6-month treatment outcomes of depressive symptoms in patients treated with duloxetine in clinical practice.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Multicenter, prospective, 6-month, non-interventional study in adult outpatients with a depressive episode and starting treatment with duloxetine. Depression severity was assessed by the clinician (Inventory for Depressive Symptomatology [IDS-C]) and patient (Kurz-Skala Stimmung/Aktivierung [KUSTA]). Somatic symptoms and PPS were assessed using the patient-rated Somatic Symptom Inventory (SSI) and visual analog scales (VAS) for pain items. Association of change in PPS with outcomes of depressive symptoms was analyzed based on mean KUSTA scores (mean of items mood, activity, tension/relaxation, sleep) and achievement of a 50% reduction in the total IDS-C score after 6 months using linear and logistic regression models, respectively.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 4,517 patients enrolled (mean age: 52.2 years, 71.8% female), 3,320 patients (73.5%) completed the study. 80% of the patients had moderate to severe overall pain (VAS > 30 mm) at baseline. A 50% VAS overall pain reduction after 4 weeks was associated with a 13.32 points higher mean KUSTA score after 6 months, and a 50% pain reduction after 2 weeks with a 6.33 points improvement. No unexpected safety signals were detected in this naturalistic study.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Pain reduction after 2 and 4 weeks can be used to estimate outcomes of long-term treatment with duloxetine. PPS associated with depression have a potential role in predicting remission of depressive symptoms in clinical practice.</p

The experience and management of neck pain in general practice: the patients’ perspective

The objective of this study is to investigate the perspective and expectation of patients presenting with neck pain in general practice. The study design is a qualitative analysis of patient interviews and was conducted in a primary care setting in Germany. Twenty patients aged 20–78, according to theoretical sampling were included in the study. Patients tried to cope autonomously with the situation and consulted GPs only if their self-help had failed. When patients asked for external help, they usually focused on somatic treatment options such as massage, physiotherapy or injections. Most patients reported to have experiences with somatic therapies; however, they felt that some or all of these treatments were inefficient or led only to short-time improvements. Patients often avoided psychosocial themes when talking to doctors for fear of being branded as ‘neurotic’. Although neck pain is difficult to manage and a burden for patients, they have obviously found a way of both living with their pain and a pragmatic approach of talking about their symptoms with their doctor. According to the patients’ statements, the interaction between doctor and patient seems to be rather distant, ensuring that both sides avoid any issues that might touch upon psychological aspects of neck pain

The Factors Influencing Depression Endpoints Research (FINDER) study: final results of Italian patients with depression

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Factors Influencing Depression Endpoints Research (FINDER) is a 6-month, prospective, observational study carried out in 12 European countries aimed at investigating health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in outpatients receiving treatment for a first or new depressive episode. The Italian HRQoL data at 6 months is described in this report, and the factors associated with HRQoL changes were determined.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data were collected at baseline, 3 and 6 months of treatment. HRQoL was measured using components of the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36; mental component summary (MCS), physical component summary (PCS)) and the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D; visual analogue scale (VAS) and health status index (HSI)). The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was adopted to evaluate depressive symptoms, while somatic and painful physical symptoms were assessed by using the 28-item Somatic Symptom Inventory (SSI-28) and a VAS.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the initial 513 patients, 472 completed the 3-month observation and 466 the 6-month observation. The SF-36 and EQ-5D mean (± SD) scores showed HRQoL improvements at 3 months and a further smaller improvement at 6 months, with the most positive effects for SF-36 MCS (baseline 22.0 ± 9.2, 3 months 34.6 ± 10.0; 6 months 39.3 ± 9.5) and EQ-5D HSI (baseline 0.4 ± 0.3; 3 months 0.7 ± 0.3; 6 months 0.7 ± 0.2). Depression and anxiety symptoms (HADS-D mean at baseline 13.3 ± 4.2; HADS-A mean at baseline 12.2 ± 3.9) consistently decreased during the first 3 months (8.7 ± 4.3; 7.5 ± 3.6) and showed a further positive change at 6 months (6.9 ± 4.3; 5.8 ± 3.4). Somatic and painful symptoms (SSI and VAS) significantly decreased, with the most positive changes in the SSI-28 somatic item (mean at baseline 2.4 ± 0.7; mean change at 3 months: -0.5; 95% CI -0.6 to -0.5; mean change at 6 months: -0.7; 95% CI -0.8 to -0.7); in 'interference of overall pain with daily activities' (mean at baseline 45.2 ± 30.7; mean change at 3 months -17.4; 95% CI -20.0 to -14.8; mean change at 6 months -24.4; 95% CI -27.3 to -21.6) and in 'having pain while awake' (mean at baseline 41.1 ± 29.0; mean change at 3 months -13.7; 95% CI -15.9 to -11.5; mean change at 6 months -20.2; 95% CI -22.8 to -17.5) domains. The results from linear regression analyses showed that the antidepressant switch within classes was consistently associated with a worsening in SF-36 MCS, EQ-5D VAS and HSI compared to non-switching treatment. Furthermore, between-group antidepressants (AD) switch was associated with a worse SF-36 MCS and EQ-5D HSI. MCS (<it>P </it>= 0.028), PCS (<it>P </it>= 0.036) and HSI (<it>P </it>= 0.002) were inversely related to the number of each previous additional depressive episode. PCS (<it>P </it>= 0.009) and HSI (<it>P </it>= 0.005) were also less improved in patients suffering from a chronic medical condition. Moreover, PCS (<it>P </it>= 0.044) and EQ-5D VAS (<it>P </it>< 0.0001) worsening was consistently associated with the presence of a psychiatric illness in the 24 months before baseline. For every additional point on the SSI-somatic score and on the overall pain VAS score at baseline, HSI score were on average 0.062 (<it>P </it>< 0.001) and 0.001 (<it>P </it>= 0.005) smaller, respectively.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>After starting AD treatment, HRQoL improvements at 3 and 6 months were observed. However, several factors can negatively influence HRQoL, such as the presence of somatic and painful symptoms, the presence of any chronic medical condition or previous psychiatric illness.</p

Long-Term Impact of War on Healthcare Costs: An Eight-Country Study

PMCID: PMC3251588This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited