Marta Buszewicz

Brief psychological therapies for anxiety and depression in primary care: meta-analysis and meta-regression

BackgroundPsychological therapies provided in primary care are usually briefer than in secondary care. There has been no recent comprehensive review comparing their effectiveness for common mental health problems. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of different types of brief psychological therapy administered within primary care across and between anxiety, depressive and mixed disorders.MethodsMeta-analysis and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials of brief psychological therapies of adult patients with anxiety, depression or mixed common mental health problems treated in primary care compared to primary care treatment as usual.ResultsThirty-four studies, involving 3962 patients, were included. Most were of brief cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT; n = 13), counselling (n = 8) or problem solving therapy (PST; n = 12). There was differential effectiveness between studies of CBT, with studies of CBT for anxiety disorders having a pooled effect size [d -1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.31 to -0.80] greater than that of studies of CBT for depression (d -0.33, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.06) or studies of CBT for mixed anxiety and depression (d -0.26, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.08). Counselling for depression and mixed anxiety and depression (d -0.32, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.11) and problem solving therapy (PST) for depression and mixed anxiety and depression (d -0.21, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.05) were also effective. Controlling for diagnosis, meta-regression found no difference between CBT, counselling and PST.ConclusionsBrief CBT, counselling and PST are all effective treatments in primary care, but effect sizes are low compared to longer length treatments. The exception is brief CBT for anxiety, which has comparable effect sizes.

Clinical Effectiveness of Individual Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Depressed Older People in Primary Care A Randomized Controlled Trial

CONTEXT In older people, depressive symptoms are common, psychological adjustment to aging is complex, and associated chronic physical illness limits the use of antidepressants. Despite this, older people are rarely offered psychological interventions, and only 3 randomized controlled trials of individual cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in a primary care setting have been published. OBJECTIVE To determine the clinical effectiveness of CBT delivered in primary care for older people with depression. DESIGN A single-blind, randomized, controlled trial with 4- and 10-month follow-up visits. PATIENTS A total of 204 people aged 65 years or older (mean [SD] age, 74.1 [7.0] years; 79.4% female; 20.6% male) with a Geriatric Mental State diagnosis of depression were recruited from primary care. INTERVENTIONS Treatment as usual (TAU), TAU plus a talking control (TC), or TAU plus CBT. The TC and CBT were offered over 4 months. OUTCOME MEASURES Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) scores collected at baseline, end of therapy (4 months), and 10 months after the baseline visit. Subsidiary measures were the Beck Anxiety Inventory, Social Functioning Questionnaire, and Euroqol. Intent to treat using Generalized Estimating Equation and Compliance Average Causal Effect analyses were used. RESULTS Eighty percent of participants were followed up. The mean number of sessions of TC or CBT was just greater than 7. Intent-to-treat analysis found improvements of -3.07 (95% confidence interval [CI], -5.73 to -0.42) and -3.65 (95% CI, -6.18 to -1.12) in BDI-II scores in favor of CBT vs TAU and TC, respectively. Compliance Average Causal Effect analysis compared CBT with TC. A significant benefit of CBT of 0.4 points (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.72) on the BDI-II per therapy session was observed. The cognitive therapy scale showed no difference for nonspecific, but significant differences for specific factors in therapy. Ratings for CBT were high (mean [SD], 54.2 [4.1]). CONCLUSION Cognitive behavioral therapy is an effective treatment for older people with depressive disorder and appears to be associated with its specific effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN18271323.

Recent trends in the incidence of recorded depression in primary care

BACKGROUND There is a paucity of data describing how general practitioners (GPs) label or record depression. AIMS To determine incidence and sociodemographic variation in GP-recorded depression diagnoses and depressive symptoms. METHOD Annual incidence rates calculated using data from 298 UK general practices between 1996 and 2006, adjusted for year of diagnosis, gender, age and deprivation. RESULTS Incidence of diagnosed depression fell from 22.5 to 14.0 per 1000 person-years at risk (PYAR) from 1996 to 2006. The incidence of depressive symptoms rose threefold from 5.1 to 15.5 per 1000 PYAR. Combined incidence of diagnoses and symptoms remained stable. Diagnosed depression and symptoms were more common in women and in more deprived areas. CONCLUSIONS Depression recorded by general practitioners has lower incidence rates than depression recorded in epidemiological studies, although there are similar associations with gender and deprivation. General practitioners increasingly use symptoms rather than diagnostic labels to categorize peoples illnesses. Studies using standardised diagnostic instruments may not be easily comparable with clinical practice.

A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of treatment as usual plus exogenous slow-release melatonin (6 mg) or placebo for sleep disturbance and depressed mood.

Sleep disturbance is common in major depressive disorder (MDD), and is often characterized by early-morning waking. Melatonin is a hypnotic and synchronizes circadian rhythms. It may also be an antidepressant. The melatonin agonists, ramelteon and agomelatine, have hypnotic and antidepressant properties, but there is a dearth of trials investigating the use of melatonin in MDD. This randomized, controlled trial aimed to determine whether exogenous melatonin is a sleep promoter and antidepressant. Thirty-three participants with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (fourth edition) diagnosis of MDD and early-morning waking were selected for a 4-week, randomized, double-blind trial of slow-release melatonin (6 mg; vs. placebo) given at bedtime over 4 weeks. Sleep was measured subjectively using sleep diaries and the Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire and objectively using wrist actigraphy. Of the 33 participants, 31 completed the trial. General Linear Modelling showed significant improvements in depression and sleep over time, but this was not specific to melatonin. However, there was a trend towards an improvement in mood with melatonin, and no adverse side effects were observed. In conclusion, melatonin may be beneficial for treating MDD, it seems to be safe and well tolerated, but its potential for treating depression in people who do not wish to take antidepressants requires further evaluation.

Economic evaluation of arthritis self management in primary care.

Objective To assess the cost effectiveness of a self management programme plus education booklet for arthritis in primary care. Design Cost effectiveness and cost utility analysis from health and social care and societal perspectives alongside a randomised controlled trial. Setting 74 general practices in the United Kingdom. Participants 812 patients aged 50 or more with osteoarthritis of the hips or knees, or both, and pain or disability, or both. Interventions Randomisation to either six sessions of an arthritis self management programme plus an education booklet (intervention group) or the education booklet alone (standard care control group). Main outcome measures Total health and social care costs and total societal costs at 12 months; cost effectiveness (incremental cost effectiveness ratios and cost effectiveness acceptability curves) on basis of quality of life (SF-36, primary outcome measure), EuroQol visual analogue scale, and quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Results At 12 months health and social care costs in the intervention group were £101 higher (95% confidence interval £3 to £176) than those in the control group because the additional costs of the arthritis self management programme did not seem to be fully offset by savings elsewhere. There were no significant differences in societal costs (which were up to 13 times the size of health and social care costs) or any of the outcomes. From the health and social care perspective the intervention was dominated by the control on the basis of QALYs (which were non-significantly lower in the intervention group) and had incremental cost effectiveness ratios between £279 and £13 473 for the other outcomes. From the societal perspective the intervention seemed superior to the control owing to non-significantly lower costs and non-significantly better outcomes on all measures except QALYs. Probabilities of the arthritis self management programme’s cost effectiveness ranged between 12% and 97% (for thresholds ranging £0 to £1000) based on one point improvements in SF-36 outcomes, but the clinical significance of this is debatable. Probabilities of cost effectiveness on the basis of the visual analogue scale and QALYs were low. Conclusions Cost effectiveness of an arthritis self management programme is not suggested on the basis of current National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence cost perspectives and QALY thresholds. The probability of cost effectiveness is greater when broader costs and other quality of life outcomes are considered. These results suggest that the cost effectiveness of the Department of Health’s expert patients programme cannot be assumed across all clinical conditions and that further rigorous evaluations for other conditions may be needed. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN79115352.

Assessment of an incentivised scheme to provide annual health checks in primary care for adults with intellectual disability: a longitudinal cohort study

BACKGROUND People with intellectual disabilities (ID) have many comorbidities but experience inequities in access to health care. National Health Service England uses an opt-in incentive scheme to encourage annual health checks of patients with ID in primary care. We investigated whether the first 3 years of the programme had improved health care of people with ID. METHODS We did a longitudinal cohort study that used data from The Health Improvement Network primary care database. We did multivariate logistic regression to assess associations between various characteristics and whether or not practices had opted in to the incentivised scheme. FINDINGS We assessed data for 8692 patients from 222 incentivised practices and those for 918 patients in 48 non-incentivised practices. More blood tests (eg, total cholesterol, odds ratio [OR] 1·88, 95% CI 1·47-2·41, p<0·0001) general health measurements (eg, smoking status, 6·0, 4·10-8·79, p<0·0001), specific health assessments (eg, hearing, 24·0, 11·5-49·9, p<0·0001), and medication reviews (2·23, 1·68-2·97, p<0·0001) were done in incentivised than in non-incentivised practices, and more health action plans (6·15, 1·41-26·9, p=0·0156) and secondary care referrals (1·47, 1·05-2·05, p=0·0256) were made. Identification rates were higher in incentivised practices for thyroid disorder (OR 2·72, 95% CI 1·09-6·81, p=0·0323), gastrointestinal disorders (1·94, 1·03-3·65, p=0·0390), and obesity (2·49, 1·76-3·53, p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION Targeted annual health checks for people with ID in primary care could reduce health inequities. FUNDING National Institute for Health Research.

Comparison of levels of depression in medical and non-medical students.

Background:  High levels of depression in junior doctors prompted this research into the prevalence of depression in medical students, compared with other non‐medical university students. We also explored potential vulnerability factors that may be associated with student depression.

Recent Trends in the Incidence of Anxiety Diagnoses and Symptoms in Primary Care

Background Anxiety is common, with significant morbidity, but little is known about presentations and recording of anxiety diagnoses and symptoms in primary care. This study aimed to determine trends in incidence and socio-demographic variation in General Practitioner (GP) recorded diagnoses of anxiety, mixed anxiety/depression, panic and anxiety symptoms. Methodology/Principal Findings Annual incidence rates of anxiety diagnoses and symptoms were calculated from 361 UK general practices contributing to The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database between 1998 and 2008, adjusted for year of diagnosis, gender, age, and deprivation. Incidence of GP recorded anxiety diagnosis fell from 7.9 to 4.9/1000PYAR from 1998 to 2008, while incidence of anxiety symptoms rose from 3.9 to 5.8/1000PYAR. Incidence of mixed anxiety/depression fell from 4.0 to 2.2/1000PYAR, and incidence of panic disorder fell from 0.9/1000PYAR in 1998 to 0.5/1000PYAR in 2008. All these entries were approximately twice as common in women and more common in deprived areas. GP-recorded anxiety diagnoses, symptoms and mixed anxiety/depression were commonest aged 45–64 years, whilst panic disorder/attacks were more common in those 16–44 years. GPs predominately use broad non-specific codes to record anxiety problems in the UK. Conclusions/Significance GP recording of anxiety diagnoses has fallen whilst recording of anxiety symptoms has increased over time. The incidence of GP recorded diagnoses of anxiety diagnoses was lower than in screened populations in primary care. The reasons for this apparent under-recording and whether it represents under-detection in those being seen, a reluctance to report anxiety to their GP, or a reluctance amongst GPs to label people with anxiety requires investigation.

Facilitating access to voluntary and community services for patients with psychosocial problems: a before-after evaluation

BackgroundPatients with psychosocial problems may benefit from a variety of community, educational, recreational and voluntary sector resources, but GPs often under-refer to these through lack of knowledge and time. This study evaluated the acceptability and effectiveness of graduate primary care mental health workers (GPCMHWs) facilitating access to voluntary and community sector services for patients with psychosocial problems.MethodsPatients with psychosocial problems from 13 general practices in London were referred to a GPCMHW Community Link scheme providing information and support to access voluntary and community resources. Patient satisfaction, mental health and social outcomes, and use of primary care resources, were evaluated.Results108 patients consented to take part in the study. At three-month follow-up, 63 (58%) had made contact with a community service identified as suitable for their needs. Most were satisfied with the help provided by the GPCMHW in identifying and supporting access to a suitable service. There was a reduction in the number of patients with a probable mental health problem on the GHQ-12 from 83% to 52% (difference 31% (95% CI, 17% – 44%). Social adjustment improved and frequencies of primary care consultations and of prescription of psychotropic medications were reduced.ConclusionGraduates with limited training in mental health and no prior knowledge of local community resources can help patients with psychosocial problems access voluntary and community services, and patients value such a scheme. There was some evidence of effectiveness in reducing psychosocial and mental health problems.

Mixed anxiety and depressive disorder outcomes: prospective cohort study in primary care.

BACKGROUND Mixed anxiety and depressive disorder (MADD) is common yet ill-defined, with little known about outcomes. AIMS To determine MADD outcomes over 1 year. METHOD We recruited 250 adults attending seven London general practices with mild-moderate distress. Three groups were defined using a diagnostic interview: MADD, other ICD-10 psychiatric diagnosis, no psychiatric diagnosis. We assessed symptoms of distress (General Health Questionnaire-28), quality of life (12-item Short Form Health Survey), general practitioner (GP) diagnosis and consultation rate at baseline, 3 months and 1 year. RESULTS Two-thirds of participants with MADD had no significant psychological distress at 3 months (61%) or 1 year (69%). However, compared with those with no diagnosis, individuals had twice the risk of significant distress (incidence rate ratio 2.39, 95% CI 1.29-4.42) at 3 months but not 1 year, and persistently lower quality of life (mental health functioning). There was no significant difference in GP consultation rate/diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS The majority with MADD improved, but individuals had an increased risk of significant distress at 3 months and a lower quality of life. As we cannot currently predict those with a poorer prognosis these patients should be actively monitored in primary care.