Does publication bias inflate the apparent efficacy of psychological treatment for major depressive disorder? A systematic review and meta-analysis of US national institutes of health-funded trials

Background The efficacy of antidepressant medication has been shown empirically to be overestimated due to publication bias, but this has only been inferred statistically with regard to psychological treatment for depression. We assessed directly the extent of study publication bias in trials examining the efficacy of psychological treatment for depression. Methods and Findings We identified US National Institutes of Health grants awarded to fund randomized clinical trials comparing psychological treatment to control conditions or other treatments in patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder for the period 1972–2008, and we determined whether those grants led to publications. For studies that were not published, data were requested from investigators and included in the meta-analyses. Thirteen (23.6%) of the 55 funded grants that began trials did not result in publications, and two others never started. Among comparisons to control conditions, adding unpublished studies (Hedges’ g = 0.20; CI95% -0.11~0.51; k = 6) to published studies (g = 0.52; 0.37~0.68; k = 20) reduced the psychotherapy effect size point estimate (g = 0.39; 0.08~0.70) by 25%. Moreover, these findings may overestimate the "true" effect of psychological treatment for depression as outcome reporting bias could not be examined quantitatively. Conclusion The efficacy of psychological interventions for depression has been overestimated in the published literature, just as it has been for pharmacotherapy. Both are efficacious but not to the extent that the published literature would suggest. Funding agencies and journals should archive both original protocols and raw data from treatment trials to allow the detection and correction of outcome reporting bias. Clinicians, guidelines developers, and decision makers should be aware that the published literature overestimates the effects of the predominant treatments for depression

Barriers to implementation of a computerized decision support system for depression: an observational report on lessons learned in "real world" clinical settings

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Despite wide promotion, clinical practice guidelines have had limited effect in changing physician behavior. Effective implementation strategies to date have included: multifaceted interventions involving audit and feedback, local consensus processes, marketing; reminder systems, either manual or computerized; and interactive educational meetings. In addition, there is now growing evidence that contextual factors affecting implementation must be addressed such as organizational support (leadership procedures and resources) for the change and strategies to implement and maintain new systems.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>To examine the feasibility and effectiveness of implementation of a computerized decision support system for depression (CDSS-D) in routine public mental health care in Texas, fifteen study clinicians (thirteen physicians and two advanced nurse practitioners) participated across five sites, accruing over 300 outpatient visits on 168 patients.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Issues regarding computer literacy and hardware/software requirements were identified as initial barriers. Clinicians also reported concerns about negative impact on workflow and the potential need for duplication during the transition from paper to electronic systems of medical record keeping.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The following narrative report based on observations obtained during the initial testing and use of a CDSS-D in clinical settings further emphasizes the importance of taking into account organizational factors when planning implementation of evidence-based guidelines or decision support within a system.</p

Seasonality in depressive and anxiety symptoms among primary care patients and in patients with depressive and anxiety disorders; results from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Little is known about seasonality of specific depressive symptoms and anxiety symptoms in different patient populations. This study aims to assess seasonal variation of depressive and anxiety symptoms in a primary care population and across participants who were classified in diagnostic groups 1) healthy controls 2) patients with a major depressive disorder, 3) patients with any anxiety disorder and 4) patients with a major depression and any anxiety disorder.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data were used from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). First, in 5549 patients from the NESDA primary care recruitment population the Kessler-10 screening questionnaire was used and data were analyzed across season in a multilevel linear model. Second, in 1090 subjects classified into four groups according to psychiatric status according to the Composite International Diagnostic Interview, overall depressive symptoms and atypical versus melancholic features were assessed with the Inventory of Depressive Symptoms. Anxiety and fear were assessed with the Beck Anxiety Inventory and the Fear questionnaire. Symptom levels across season were analyzed in a linear regression model.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In the primary care population the severity of depressive and anxiety symptoms did not show a seasonal pattern. In the diagnostic groups healthy controls and patients with any anxiety disorder, but not patients with a major depressive disorder, showed a small rise in depressive symptoms in winter. Atypical and melancholic symptoms were both elevated in winter. No seasonal pattern for anxiety symptoms was found. There was a small gender related seasonal effect for fear symptoms.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Seasonal differences in severity or type of depressive and anxiety symptoms, as measured with a general screening instrument and symptom questionnaires, were absent or small in effect size in a primary care population and in patient populations with a major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders.</p

Stepped care treatment for depression and anxiety in primary care. a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Depressive and anxiety disorders are common in general practice but not always treated adequately. Introducing stepped care might improve this. In this randomized trial we examined the effectiveness of such a stepped care model.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study population consisted of primary care attendees aged 18-65 years with minor or major DSM-IV depressive and/or anxiety disorders, recruited through screening. We randomized 120 patients to either stepped care or care as usual. The stepped care program consisted of (1) <it>watchful waiting</it>, (2) <it>guided self-help</it>, (3) short face-to-face <it>Problem Solving Treatment </it>and (4) <it>pharmacotherapy and/or specialized mental health care</it>. Patients were assessed at baseline and after 8, 16 and 24 weeks.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Symptoms of depression and anxiety decreased significantly over time for both groups. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (IDS: <it>P </it>= 0.35 and HADS: <it>P </it>= 0.64). The largest, but not significant, effect (<it>d </it>= -0.21) was found for anxiety on T3. In both groups approximately 48% of the patients were recovered from their DSM-IV diagnosis at the final 6 months assessment.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In summary we could not demonstrate that stepped care for depression and anxiety in general practice was more effective than care as usual. Possible reasons are discussed.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Trails: <a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN17831610">ISRCTN17831610</a>.</p

Stepped care for depression and anxiety: from primary care to specialized mental health care: a randomised controlled trial testing the effectiveness of a stepped care program among primary care patients with mood or anxiety disorders

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Mood and anxiety disorders are highly prevalent and have a large impact on the lives of the affected individuals. Therefore, optimal treatment of these disorders is highly important. In this study we will examine the effectiveness of a stepped care program for primary care patients with mood and anxiety disorders. A stepped care program is characterized by different treatment steps that are arranged in order of increasing intensity. METHODS: This study is a randomised controlled trial with two conditions: stepped care and care as usual, whereby the latter forms the control group. The stepped care program consists of four evidence based interventions: (1) Watchful waiting, (2) Guided self-help, (3) Problem Solving Treatment and (4) Medication and/or specialized mental health care. The study population consists of primary care attendees aged 18-65 years. Screeners are sent to all patients of the participating general practitioners. Individuals with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorders (DSM) diagnosis of major depression, dysthymia, panic disorder (with or without agoraphobia), generalized anxiety disorder, or social phobia are included as well as individuals with minor depression and anxiety disorders. Primary focus is the reduction of depressive and anxiety symptoms. Both conditions are monitored at 8, 16 and 24 weeks. DISCUSSION: This study evaluates the effectiveness of a stepped care program for patients with depressive and anxiety disorder. If effective, a stepped care program can form a worthwhile alternative for care as usual. Strengths and limitations of this study are discussed. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trails: ISRCTN1783161

Cost-effectiveness of collaborative care including PST and an antidepressant treatment algorithm for the treatment of major depressive disorder in primary care; a randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND: Depressive disorder is currently one of the most burdensome disorders worldwide. Evidence-based treatments for depressive disorder are already available, but these are used insufficiently, and with less positive results than possible. Earlier research in the USA has shown good results in the treatment of depressive disorder based on a collaborative care approach with Problem Solving Treatment and an antidepressant treatment algorithm, and research in the UK has also shown good results with Problem Solving Treatment. These treatment strategies may also work very well in the Netherlands too, even though health care systems differ between countries. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a two-armed randomised clinical trial, with randomization on patient-level. The aim of the trial is to evaluate the treatment of depressive disorder in primary care in the Netherlands by means of an adapted collaborative care framework, including contracting and adherence-improving strategies, combined with Problem Solving Treatment and antidepressant medication according to a treatment algorithm. Forty general practices will be randomised to either the intervention group or the control group. Included will be patients who are diagnosed with moderate to severe depression, based on DSM-IV criteria, and stratified according to comorbid chronic physical illness. Patients in the intervention group will receive treatment based on the collaborative care approach, and patients in the control group will receive care as usual. Baseline measurements and follow up measures (3, 6, 9 and 12 months) are assessed using questionnaires and an interview. The primary outcome measure is severity of depressive symptoms, according to the PHQ9. Secondary outcome measures are remission as measured with the PHQ9 and the IDS-SR, and cost-effectiveness measured with the TiC-P, the EQ-5D and the SF-36. DISCUSSION: In this study, an American model to enhance care for patients with a depressive disorder, the collaborative care model, will be evaluated for effectiveness in the primary care setting. If effective across the Atlantic and across different health care systems, it is also likely to be an effective strategy to implement in the treatment of major depressive disorder in the Netherlands

Depression care management for late-life depression in China primary care: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>As a major public health issue in China and worldwide, late-life depression is associated with physical limitations, greater functional impairment, increased utilization and cost of health care, and suicide. Like other chronic diseases in elders such as hypertension and diabetes, depression is a chronic disease that the new National Health Policy of China indicates should be managed in primary care settings. Collaborative care, linking primary and mental health specialty care, has been shown to be effective for the treatment of late-life depression in primary care settings in Western countries. The primary aim of this project is to implement a depression care management (DCM) intervention, and examine its effectiveness on the depressive symptoms of older patients in Chinese primary care settings.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The trial is a multi-site, primary clinic based randomized controlled trial design in Hangzhou, China. Sixteen primary care clinics will be enrolled in and randomly assigned to deliver either DCM or care as usual (CAU) (8 clinics each) to 320 patients (aged ≥ 60 years) with major depression (20/clinic; n = 160 in each treatment condition). In the DCM arm, primary care physicians (PCPs) will prescribe 16 weeks of antidepressant medication according to the treatment guideline protocol. Care managers monitor the progress of treatment and side effects, educate patients/family, and facilitate communication between providers; psychiatrists will provide weekly group psychiatric consultation and CM supervision. Patients in both DCM and CAU arms will be assessed by clinical research coordinators at baseline, 4, 8, 12, 18, and 24 months. Depressive symptoms, functional status, treatment stigma and clients' satisfaction will be used to assess patients' outcomes; and clinic practices, attitudes/knowledge, and satisfaction will be providers' outcomes.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This will be the first trial of the effectiveness of a collaborative care intervention aiming to the management of late-life depression in China primary care. If effective, its finding will have relevance to policy makers who wish to scale up DCM treatments for late-life depression in national wide primary care across China.</p> <p>Study Registration</p> <p>The DCM project is registered through the National Institutes of Health sponsored by clinical trials registry and has been assigned the identifier: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01287494">NCT01287494</a></p