Diagnostic accuracy of depression questionnaires in adult patients with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Importance Comorbid depression is common among patients with diabetes and has severe health consequences, but often remains unrecognized. Several questionnaires are used to screen for depression. A systematic review and meta-analysis regarding the diagnostic accuracy of depression questionnaires in adults with diabetes is unavailable. Objective To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of depression questionnaires in adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Data sources PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO were searched from inception to 28 February 2018. Study selection Studies were included when the diagnostic accuracy of depression questionnaires was assessed in a diabetes population and the reference standard was a clinical interview. Data extraction and synthesis Data extraction was performed by one reviewer and checked by another. Two reviewers independently conducted the quality assessment (QUADAS-2). Diagnostic accuracy was pooled in bivariate random effects models. This study is reported according to PRISMA-DTA and is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018092950). Main Outcome(s) and measure(s) Diagnostic accuracy, expressed as sensitivity and specificity, of depression questionnaires in an adult diabetes population. Results A total 6,097 peer-reviewed articles were screened. Twenty-one studies (N= 5,703 patients) met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Twelve different depression questionnaires were identified, of which the CES-D (n=6 studies) and PHQ-9 (n=7 studies) were the most frequently evaluated. Risk of bias was unclear for multiple domains in the majority of studies. In the meta-analyses, five (N= 1,228) studies of the CES-D (≥16), five (N= 1,642) of the PHQ-9 (≥10) and four (N=822) of the algorithm of the PHQ-9 were included in the pooled analysis. The CES-D (≥16) had a pooled sensitivity of 85.0% (95%CI, 71.3-92.8%) and a specificity of 71.6% (95%CI, 62.5-79.2%); the PHQ-9 (≥10) had a sensitivity of 81.5% (95%CI, 57.1-93.5%) and a specificity of 79.7% (95%CI, 62.1-90.4%). The algorithm for the PHQ-9 had a sensitivity of 60.9% (95%CI, 52.3-50 90.8%) and a specificity of 64.0% (95%CI, 53.0-93.9%). Conclusions and relevance This review indicates that the CES-D had the highest sensitivity, whereas the PHQ-9 had the highest specificity, although confidence intervals were wide and overlapping. The algorithm for the PHQ-9 had the lowest sensitivity and specificity. Given the variance in results and suboptimal reporting of studies, further high quality studies are needed to confirm the diagnostic accuracy of these depression questionnaires in patients with diabetes

Cost-effectiveness of a lifestyle intervention for people with a serious mental illness (SMILE): Design of a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial

Background: Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of the estimated 11-25 years reduced life expectancy for persons with serious mental illness (SMI). This excess cardiovascular mortality is primarily attributable to obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidaemia. Obesity is associated with a sedentary lifestyle, limited physical activity and an unhealthy diet. Lifestyle interventions for persons with SMI seem promising in reducing weight and cardiovascular risk. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a lifestyle intervention among persons with SMI in an outpatient treatment setting. Methods: The Serious Mental Illness Lifestyle Evaluation (SMILE) study is a cluster-randomized controlled trial including an economic evaluation in approximately 18 Flexible Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) teams in the Netherlands. The intervention aims at a healthy diet and increased physical activity. Randomisation takes place at the level of participating FACT-teams. We aim to include 260 outpatients with SMI and a body mass index of 27 or higher who will either receive the lifestyle intervention or usual care. The intervention will last 12 months and consists of weekly 2-h group meetings delivered over the first 6 months. The next 6 months will include monthly group meetings, supplemented with regular individual contacts. Primary outcome is weight loss. Secondary outcomes are metabolic parameters (waist circumference, lipids, blood pressure, glucose), quality of life and health related self-efficacy. Costs will be measured from a societal perspective and include costs of the lifestyle program, health care utilization, medication and lost productivity. Measurements will be performed at baseline and 3, 6 and 12 months. Discussion: The SMILE intervention for persons with SMI will provide important information on the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, feasibility and delivery of a group-based lifestyle intervention in a Dutch outpatient treatment setting

Implementation of a lifestyle intervention for people with a severe mental illness (SMILE): a process evaluation

BACKGROUND: Several interventions have been developed to improve physical health and lifestyle behaviour of people with a severe mental illness (SMI). Recently, we conducted a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial which evaluated the effects of the one-year Severe Mental Illness Lifestyle Evaluation (SMILE) lifestyle intervention compared with usual care in clients with SMI. The SMILE intervention is a 12-month group-based lifestyle intervention with a focus on increased physical activity and healthy food intake. The aim of the current study was to explore the experiences of people with SMI and healthcare professionals (HCPs) regarding implementation feasibility of the SMILE intervention and the fidelity to the SMILE intervention. METHODS: A process evaluation was conducted alongside the pragmatic randomized controlled trial. The experiences of clients and HCPs in the lifestyle intervention group were studied. First, descriptive data on the implementation of the intervention were collected. Next, semi-structured interviews with clients (n = 15) and HCPs (n = 13) were performed. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis of the interview data was performed using MAXQDA software. In addition, observations of group sessions were performed to determine the fidelity to the SMILE intervention using a standardised form. RESULTS: Ten out of 26 HCPs who conducted the group sessions discontinued their involvement with the intervention, primarily due to changing jobs. 98% of all planned group sessions were performed. Four main themes emerged from the interviews: 1) Positive appraisal of the SMILE intervention, 2) Suggestions for improvement of the SMILE intervention 3) Facilitators of implementation and 4) Barriers of implementation. Both clients and HCPs had positive experiences regarding the SMILE intervention. Clients found the intervention useful and informative. The intervention was found suitable and interesting for all people with SMI, though HCPs sometimes had to tailor the intervention to individual characteristics of patients (e.g., with respect to cognitive functioning). The handbook of the SMILE intervention was perceived as user-friendly and helpful by HCPs. Combining SMILE with daily tasks, no support from other team members, and lack of staff and time were experienced as barriers for the delivery of the intervention. CONCLUSION: The SMILE intervention was feasible and well-perceived by clients and HCPs. However, we also identified some aspects that may have hindered effective implementation and needs to be considered when implementing the SMILE intervention in daily practice