Marco Menchetti

Psychological interventions for major depression in primary care: a meta-analytic review of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE Various studies have tested psychological therapies in the treatment of depression in primary care. Yet, concerns over their clinical effectiveness, as compared to usual general practitioner (GP) care or treatment with antidepressants, have been raised. The present meta-analysis was aimed at assessing currently available evidence on the topic. METHOD A systematic search of electronic databases identified 10 randomized controlled trials comparing psychological forms of intervention with either usual GP care or antidepressant medication for major depression. Meta-analytical procedures were used to examine the impact of psychological intervention in primary care on depression, as compared to usual GP care and antidepressant treatment. RESULTS The main analyses showed greater effectiveness of psychological intervention over usual GP care in both the short term [standardized mean difference (SMD)=-0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI)=-0.59 to -0.26, n=408] and long term (SMD=-0.30, 95% CI=-0.45 to -0.14, n=433). The heterogeneity test was not significant in the short term at the P<.05 level (df=5, P=.57, I(2)=0%), but it was significant in the long term (df=5, P=.004, I(2)=70.9%). The comparison between psychological forms of intervention and antidepressant medication yielded no effectiveness differences, for either the short term or the long term. CONCLUSIONS Psychological forms of intervention are significantly linked to clinical improvement in depressive symptomatology and may be useful for supplementing usual GP care.

Recognition and treatment of depression in primary care: Effect of patients' presentation and frequency of consultation

OBJECTIVE Primary care physicians (PCPs) are expected to recognize depression and appropriately prescribe antidepressants. This article investigated the single and combined effects of different patient presentations and frequency of visits on detection and antidepressant use. METHODS Data came from an Italian nationwide survey on depressive disorders in primary care, involving 191 PCPs and 1910 attenders. Two hundred fifty patients suffering from major or subthreshold depression were compared in relation to their presentation (psychological, physical, and pain) and frequency of visits (low and high). RESULTS Recognition of depression significantly varied according to both presentation and frequency of visits. When compared to patients with psychological complaints, the odds ratios for nonrecognition of depression were higher for patients presenting with physical symptoms [2.3; 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.1-5.3] and with pain (4.1; 95% CI=1.6-9.9). Subjects who rarely attended the practice were 2.3 times less likely to receive a diagnosis of depression, compared with those having a high frequency of visits (95% CI=1.2-4.6). Similarly, patients presenting with physical symptoms or with pain and those with a low frequency of visits were rarely treated with antidepressants. The combination of physical or pain presentation with low frequency of visits further increased the risk for nonrecognition, which was sixfold that of the reference category. CONCLUSIONS Some subgroups of depressed patients still run a high risk of having their depression unrecognized by the PCP. Screening for depression among patients presenting with pain might be useful in order to improve recognition and management.