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

Analysis of decisions made in meta-analyses of depression screening and the risk of confirmation bias: a case study

Background: Depression is common in primary care and clinicians are encouraged to screen their patients. Metaanalyses have evaluated the effectiveness of screening, but two author groups consistently reached completely opposite conclusions. Methods: We identified five systematic reviews on depression screening conducted between 2001 and 2009, three by Gilbody and colleagues and two by the United States Preventive Task Force. The two author groups consistently reached completely opposite conclusions. We analyzed two contemporaneous systematic reviews, applying a stepwise approach to unravel their methods. Decision points were identified, and discrepancies between systematic reviews authors justification of choices made were recorded. Results: Two systematic reviews each addressing three research questions included 26 randomized controlled trials with different combinations in each review. For the outcome depression screening resulting in treatment, both reviews undertook meta-analyses of imperfectly overlapping studies. Two in particular, pooled each by only one of the reviews, influenced the recommendations in opposite directions. Justification for inclusion or exclusion of studies was obtuse. Conclusion: Systematic reviews may be less objective than assumed. Based on this analysis of two meta-analyses we hypothesise that strongly held prior beliefs (confirmation bias) may have influenced inclusion and exclusion criteria of studies, and their interpretation. Authors should be required to declare a priori any strongly held prior beliefs within their hypotheses, before embarking on systematic reviews

Analysis of decisions made in meta-analyses of depression screening and the risk of confirmation bias: a case study

Background: Depression is common in primary care and clinicians are encouraged to screen their patients. Metaanalyses have evaluated the effectiveness of screening, but two author groups consistently reached completely opposite conclusions. Methods: We identified five systematic reviews on depression screening conducted between 2001 and 2009, three by Gilbody and colleagues and two by the United States Preventive Task Force. The two author groups consistently reached completely opposite conclusions. We analyzed two contemporaneous systematic reviews, applying a stepwise approach to unravel their methods. Decision points were identified, and discrepancies between systematic reviews authors justification of choices made were recorded. Results: Two systematic reviews each addressing three research questions included 26 randomized controlled trials with different combinations in each review. For the outcome depression screening resulting in treatment, both reviews undertook meta-analyses of imperfectly overlapping studies. Two in particular, pooled each by only one of the reviews, influenced the recommendations in opposite directions. Justification for inclusion or exclusion of studies was obtuse. Conclusion: Systematic reviews may be less objective than assumed. Based on this analysis of two meta-analyses we hypothesise that strongly held prior beliefs (confirmation bias) may have influenced inclusion and exclusion criteria of studies, and their interpretation. Authors should be required to declare a priori any strongly held prior beliefs within their hypotheses, before embarking on systematic reviews