Chris Manning

Clinical effectiveness of collaborative care for depression in UK primary care (CADET): cluster randomised controlled trial

Objective To compare the clinical effectiveness of collaborative care with usual care in the management of patients with moderate to severe depression. Design Cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting 51 primary care practices in three primary care districts in the United Kingdom. Participants 581 adults aged 18 years and older who met ICD-10 (international classification of diseases, 10th revision) criteria for a depressive episode on the revised Clinical Interview Schedule. We excluded acutely suicidal patients and those with psychosis, or with type I or type II bipolar disorder; patients whose low mood was associated with bereavement or whose primary presenting problem was alcohol or drug abuse; and patients receiving psychological treatment for their depression by specialist mental health services. We identified potentially eligible participants by searching computerised case records in general practices for patients with depression. Interventions Collaborative care, including depression education, drug management, behavioural activation, relapse prevention, and primary care liaison, was delivered by care managers. Collaborative care involved six to 12 contacts with participants over 14 weeks, supervised by mental health specialists. Usual care was family doctors’ standard clinical practice. Main outcome measures Depression symptoms (patient health questionnaire 9; PHQ-9), anxiety (generalised anxiety disorder 7; GAD-7), and quality of life (short form 36 questionnaire; SF-36) at four and 12 months; satisfaction with service quality (client satisfaction questionnaire; CSQ-8) at four months. Results 276 participants were allocated to collaborative care and 305 allocated to usual care. At four months, mean depression score was 11.1 (standard deviation 7.3) for the collaborative care group and 12.7 (6.8) for the usual care group. After adjustment for baseline depression, mean depression score was 1.33 PHQ-9 points lower (95% confidence interval 0.35 to 2.31, P=0.009) in participants receiving collaborative care than in those receiving usual care at four months, and 1.36 points lower (0.07 to 2.64, P=0.04) at 12 months. Quality of mental health but not physical health was significantly better for collaborative care than for usual care at four months, but not 12 months. Anxiety did not differ between groups. Participants receiving collaborative care were significantly more satisfied with treatment than those receiving usual care. The number needed to treat for one patient to drop below the accepted diagnostic threshold for depression on the PHQ-9 was 8.4 immediately after treatment, and 6.5 at 12 months. Conclusions Collaborative care has persistent positive effects up to 12 months after initiation of the intervention and is preferred by patients over usual care. Trial registration number ISRCTN32829227.

Cost-Effectiveness of Collaborative Care for Depression in UK Primary Care: Economic Evaluation of a Randomised Controlled Trial (CADET)

Background Collaborative care is an effective treatment for the management of depression but evidence on its cost-effectiveness in the UK is lacking. Aims To assess the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care in a UK primary care setting. Methods An economic evaluation alongside a multi-centre cluster randomised controlled trial comparing collaborative care with usual primary care for adults with depression (n = 581). Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated over a 12-month follow-up, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services (i.e. Third Party Payer). Sensitivity analyses are reported, and uncertainty is presented using the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) and the cost-effectiveness plane. Results The collaborative care intervention had a mean cost of £272.50 per participant. Health and social care service use, excluding collaborative care, indicated a similar profile of resource use between collaborative care and usual care participants. Collaborative care offered a mean incremental gain of 0.02 (95% CI: –0.02, 0.06) quality-adjusted life-years over 12 months, at a mean incremental cost of £270.72 (95% CI: –202.98, 886.04), and resulted in an estimated mean cost per QALY of £14,248. Where costs associated with informal care are considered in sensitivity analyses collaborative care is expected to be less costly and more effective, thereby dominating treatment as usual. Conclusion Collaborative care offers health gains at a relatively low cost, and is cost-effective compared with usual care against a decision-maker willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Results here support the commissioning of collaborative care in a UK primary care setting.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for depression in UK primary care (CADET): a cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Collaborative care is effective for depression management in the USA. There is little UK evidence on its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVE To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care compared with usual care in the management of patients with moderate to severe depression. DESIGN Cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING UK primary care practices (n = 51) in three UK primary care districts. PARTICIPANTS A total of 581 adults aged ≥ 18 years in general practice with a current International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition depressive episode, excluding acutely suicidal people, those with psychosis, bipolar disorder or low mood associated with bereavement, those whose primary presentation was substance abuse and those receiving psychological treatment. INTERVENTIONS Collaborative care: 14 weeks of 6-12 telephone contacts by care managers; mental health specialist supervision, including depression education, medication management, behavioural activation, relapse prevention and primary care liaison. Usual care was general practitioner standard practice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Blinded researchers collected depression [Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9)], anxiety (General Anxiety Disorder-7) and quality of life (European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions three-level version), Short Form questionnaire-36 items) outcomes at 4, 12 and 36 months, satisfaction (Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8) outcomes at 4 months and treatment and service use costs at 12 months. RESULTS In total, 276 and 305 participants were randomised to collaborative care and usual care respectively. Collaborative care participants had a mean depression score that was 1.33 PHQ-9 points lower [n = 230; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 2.31; p = 0.009] than that of participants in usual care at 4 months and 1.36 PHQ-9 points lower (n = 275; 95% CI 0.07 to 2.64; p = 0.04) at 12 months after adjustment for baseline depression (effect size 0.28, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.52; odds ratio for recovery 1.88, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.75; number needed to treat 6.5). Quality of mental health but not physical health was significantly better for collaborative care at 4 months but not at 12 months. There was no difference for anxiety. Participants receiving collaborative care were significantly more satisfied with treatment. Differences between groups had disappeared at 36 months. Collaborative care had a mean cost of £272.50 per participant with similar health and social care service use between collaborative care and usual care. Collaborative care offered a mean incremental gain of 0.02 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.06) quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over 12 months at a mean incremental cost of £270.72 (95% CI -£202.98 to £886.04) and had an estimated mean cost per QALY of £14,248, which is below current UK willingness-to-pay thresholds. Sensitivity analyses including informal care costs indicated that collaborative care is expected to be less costly and more effective. The amount of participant behavioural activation was the only effect mediator. CONCLUSIONS Collaborative care improves depression up to 12 months after initiation of the intervention, is preferred by patients over usual care, offers health gains at a relatively low cost, is cost-effective compared with usual care and is mediated by patient activation. Supervision was by expert clinicians and of short duration and more intensive therapy may have improved outcomes. In addition, one participant requiring inpatient treatment incurred very significant costs and substantially inflated our cost per QALY estimate. Future work should test enhanced intervention content not collaborative care per se. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN32829227. FUNDING This project was funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) (G0701013) and managed by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) on behalf of the MRC-NIHR partnership.

Barriers, facilitators, and survival strategies for GPs seeking treatment for distress: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND GPs are under increasing pressure due to a lack of resources, a diminishing workforce, and rising patient demand. As a result, they may feel stressed, burnt out, anxious, or depressed. AIM To establish what might help or hinder GPs experiencing mental distress as they consider seeking help for their symptoms, and to explore potential survival strategies. DESIGN AND SETTING The authors recruited 47 GP participants via e-mails to doctors attending a specialist service, adverts to local medical committees (LMCs) nationally and in GP publications, social media, and snowballing. Participants self-identified as either currently living with mental distress, returning to work following treatment, off sick or retired early as a result of mental distress, or without experience of mental distress. Interviews were conducted face to face or over the telephone. METHOD Transcripts were uploaded to NVivo 11 and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS Barriers and facilitators were related to work, stigma, and symptoms. Specifically, GPs discussed feeling a need to attend work, the stigma surrounding mental ill health, and issues around time, confidentiality, and privacy. Participants also reported difficulties accessing good-quality treatment. GPs also talked about cutting down or varying work content, or asserting boundaries to protect themselves. CONCLUSION Systemic changes, such as further information about specialist services designed to help GPs, are needed to support individual GPs and protect the profession from further damage.

Who cares for the clinicians?: The mental health crisis in the GP workforce

The fact that a significant proportion of the UK’s GPs are living with mental health problems has been known for some time. Studies have shown that many GPs are depressed, anxious, stressed, or ‘burnt out’ as a result of practice pressures such as organisational changes and increased workload, the negative media climate, and a sense of isolation.1 There is evidence that GPs have difficulty accessing appropriate mental health or support services,2 for reasons around availability or concerns about confidentiality. Doctors are more likely than the general population to die by suicide, with female doctors, anaesthetists, GPs, and psychiatrists being the most vulnerable.3 Some clinicians experience alcohol addiction as a result of the pressures of practice.4 Just as they would for any other member of the population, mental health difficulties take their toll on all aspects of GPs’ lives, including self-esteem, personal relationships, finance, work–life balance, and work performance. However, despite the clear and critical effect on GPs themselves, it is striking how frequently existing narratives suggest that physician health only matters because of its potential negative impact on patients. While doctors are encouraged to see their patients holistically, they are often not afforded the same treatment themselves.5 That doctors themselves can become patients is often overlooked,6 and there are many internal and external barriers to doctors adopting the patient role. The drive to support patients …

College of Medicine replies to its critics

Cassidy’s article and the rapid responses contain errors and misunderstandings.1 2 3 4 The college aims to promote a more politically and professionally transparent, patient centred, and sustainable approach to healthcare, using whatever social or therapeutic approaches are safe, effective, and empowering for patients. The college is calling for a more compassionate NHS, where practice based on good evidence has …

Treating doctors’ distress

All doctors throughout their training and career need to be skilled in dealing with distress—in themselves, each other, and their patients.1 And if mental health “first aid” is so effective for the public, then, as people first, the same surely applies to doctors. …

Time to enable people to deliver good healthcare instead of sanctioning them

The Care Quality Commission is nearly three times more likely to sanction general practices in England’s more deprived areas than those in affluent areas.1 But Ruth Rankine, deputy chief inspector for general practice, says that many practices …

Doctors’ suicides: economic considerations and beyond

Hawton states that “doctors have long been known to be at risk of suicide.”1 Each such suicide, aside from all the human suffering and pain, costs about £2m (€2.8m;

Doctors and depression

1.5m).2 Against this, the General Medical Council’s recommendation …