Tony Kendrick

Behavioural counselling in general practice for the promotion of healthy behaviour among adults at increased risk of coronary heart disease: randomised trial

Abstract Objective: To measure the effect of behaviourally oriented counselling in general practice on healthy behaviour and biological risk factors in patients at increased risk of coronary heart disease. Design: Cluster randomised controlled trial. Participants: 883 men and women selected for the presence of one or more modifiable risk factors: regular cigarette smoking, high serum cholesterol concentration (6.5-9.0 mmol/l), and high body mass index (25-35) combined with low physical activity. Intervention: Brief behavioural counselling, on the basis of the stage of change model, carried out by practice nurses to reduce smoking and dietary fat intake and to increase regular physical activity. Main outcome measures: Questionnaire measures of diet, exercise, and smoking habits, and blood pressure, serum total cholesterol concentration, weight, body mass index, and smoking cessation (with biochemical validation) at 4 and 12 months. Results: Favourable differences were recorded in the intervention group for dietary fat intake, regular exercise, and cigarettes smoked per day at 4 and 12 months. Systolic blood pressure was reduced to a greater extent in the intervention group at 4 but not at 12 months No differences were found between groups in changes in total serum cholesterol concentration, weight, body mass index, diastolic pressure, or smoking cessation. Conclusions: Brief behavioural counselling by practice nurses led to improvements in healthy behaviour. More extended counselling to help patients sustain and build on behaviour changes may be required before differences in biological risk factors emerge.

Explaining the rise in antidepressant prescribing: a descriptive study using the general practice research database

Objective To explore the reasons behind the recent increase in antidepressant prescribing in the United Kingdom. Design Detailed retrospective analysis of data on general practitioner consultations and antidepressant prescribing. Data source Data were obtained from the general practice research database, which contains linked anonymised records of over 3 million patients registered in the UK. Data were extracted for all new incident cases of depression between 1993 and 2005. Review methods Detailed analysis of general practitioner consultations and antidepressant prescribing was restricted to 170 practices that were contributing data for the full duration of the study. Results In total, 189 851 people within the general practice research database experienced their first episode of depression between 1993 and 2005, of whom 150 825 (79.4%) received a prescription for antidepressants in the first year of diagnosis. This proportion remained stable across all the years examined. The incidence of new cases of depression rose in young women but fell slightly in other groups such that overall incidence increased then declined slightly (men: 7.83 cases per 1000 patient years in 1993 to 5.97 in 2005, women: 15.83 cases per 1000 patient years in 1993 to 10.06 in 2005). Antidepressant prescribing nearly doubled during the study period—the average number of prescriptions issued per patient increased from 2.8 in 1993 to 5.6 in 2004. The majority of antidepressant prescriptions were given as long term treatment or as intermittent treatment to patients with multiple episodes of depression. Conclusions The rise in antidepressant prescribing is mainly explained by small changes in the proportion of patients receiving long term treatment. Previous clinical guidelines have focused on antidepressant initiation and appropriate targeting of antidepressants. To address the costly rise in antidepressant prescribing, future research and guidance needs to concentrate on appropriate long term prescribing for depression and regular review of medication.

Influence of initial severity of depression on effectiveness of low intensity interventions: meta-analysis of individual patient data

Objective To assess how initial severity of depression affects the benefit derived from low intensity interventions for depression. Design Meta-analysis of individual patient data from 16 datasets comparing low intensity interventions with usual care. Setting Primary care and community settings. Participants 2470 patients with depression. Interventions Low intensity interventions for depression (such as guided self help by means of written materials and limited professional support, and internet delivered interventions). Main outcome measures Depression outcomes (measured with the Beck Depression Inventory or Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale), and the effect of initial depression severity on the effects of low intensity interventions. Results Although patients were referred for low intensity interventions, many had moderate to severe depression at baseline. We found a significant interaction between baseline severity and treatment effect (coefficient −0.1 (95% CI −0.19 to −0.002)), suggesting that patients who are more severely depressed at baseline demonstrate larger treatment effects than those who are less severely depressed. However, the magnitude of the interaction (equivalent to an additional drop of around one point on the Beck Depression Inventory for a one standard deviation increase in initial severity) was small and may not be clinically significant. Conclusions The data suggest that patients with more severe depression at baseline show at least as much clinical benefit from low intensity interventions as less severely depressed patients and could usefully be offered these interventions as part of a stepped care model.

Management of depression in UK general practice in relation to scores on depression severity questionnaires: analysis of medical record data.

Objective To determine if general practitioner rates of antidepressant drug prescribing and referrals to specialist services for depression vary in line with patients’ scores on depression severity questionnaires. Design Analysis of anonymised medical record data. Setting 38 general practices in three sites—Southampton, Liverpool, and Norfolk. Data reviewed Records for 2294 patients assessed with severity questionnaires for depression between April 2006 and March 2007 inclusive. Main outcome measures Rates of prescribing of antidepressants and referrals to specialist mental health or social services. Results 1658 patients were assessed with the 9 item patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9), 584 with the depression subscale of the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS), and 52 with the Beck depression inventory, 2nd edition (BDI-II). Overall, 79.1% of patients assessed with either PHQ-9 or HADS received a prescription for an antidepressant, and 22.8% were referred to specialist services. Prescriptions and referrals were significantly associated with higher severity scores. However, overall rates of treatment and referral were similar for patients assessed with either measure despite the fact that, with PHQ-9, 83.5% of patients were classified as moderately to severely depressed and in need of treatment, whereas only 55.6% of patients were so classified with HADS. Rates of treatment were lower for older patients and for patients with comorbid physical illness (including coronary heart disease and diabetes) despite the fact that screening for depression among such patients is encouraged in the quality and outcomes framework. Conclusions General practitioners do not decide on drug treatment or referral for depression on the basis of questionnaire scores alone, but also take account of other factors such as age and physical illness. The two most widely used severity questionnaires perform inconsistently in practice, suggesting that changing the recommended threshold scores for intervention might make the measures more valid, more consistent with practitioners’ clinical judgment, and more acceptable to practitioners as a way of classifying patients.

Patients’ and doctors’ views on depression severity questionnaires incentivised in UK quality and outcomes framework: qualitative study

Objective To gain understanding of general practitioners’ and patients’ opinions of the routine introduction of standardised measures of severity of depression through the UK general practice quality and outcomes framework. Design Semistructured qualitative interview study, with purposive sampling and constant comparative analysis. Participants 34 general practitioners and 24 patients. Setting 38 general practices in three sites in England: Southampton, Liverpool, and Norfolk. Results Patients generally favoured the measures of severity for depression, whereas general practitioners were generally cautious about the validity and utility of such measures and sceptical about the motives behind their introduction. Both general practitioners and patients considered that assessments of severity should be seen as one aspect of holistic care. General practitioners considered their practical wisdom and clinical judgment (“phronesis”) to be more important than objective assessments and were concerned that the assessments reduced the human element of the consultation. Patients were more positive about the questionnaires, seeing them as an efficient and structured supplement to medical judgment and as evidence that general practitioners were taking their problems seriously through a full assessment. General practitioners and patients were aware of the potential for manipulation of indicators: for economic reasons for doctors and for patients to avoid stigma or achieve desired outcomes. Conclusions Despite general practitioners’ caution about measures of severity for depression, these may benefit primary care consultations by increasing patients’ confidence that general practitioners are correct in their diagnosis and are making systematic efforts to assess and manage their mental health problems. Further education of primary care staff may optimise the use and interpretation of depression questionnaires.

Why can't GPs follow guidelines on depression?: We must question the basis of the guidelines themselves

The Hampshire depression project, published recently, was a large well designed randomised controlled study of teaching practitioners about the recognition and management of depression and using patient improvement as the outcome measure. Its results were disappointingly negative, failing to show any increase in recognition or patient recovery rates.1 These findings herald the need for a major change in thinking about improving the management of depression in primary care.

Randomised controlled trial of effect of leaflets to empower patients in consultations in primary care

Abstract Objective To assess the impact of leaflets encouraging patients to raise concerns and to discuss symptoms or other health related issues in the consultation. Design Randomised controlled trial. Setting Five general practices in three settings in the United Kingdom. Participants 636 consecutive patients, aged 16-80 years, randomised to receive a general leaflet, a depression leaflet, both, or neither. Main outcomes Mean item score on the medical interview satisfaction scale, consultation time, prescribing, Rerral, and investigation. Results The general leaflet increased patient satisfaction and was more effective with shorter consultations (leaflet 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.19 to 1.08; time 0.31, 0.0 to 0.06; interaction between both −0.045, −0.08 to—0.009), with similar results for subscales related to the different aspects of communication. Thus for a 10 minute consultation the leaflet increased satisfaction by 7% (seven centile points) and for a five minute consultation by 14%. The leaflet overall caused a small non-significant increase in consultation time (0.36 minutes, −0.54 to 1.26). Although there was no change in prescribing or Rerral, a general leaflet increased the numbers of investigations (odds ratio 1.43, 1.00 to 2.05), which persisted when controlling for the major potential confounders of perceived medical need and patient pRerence (1.87, 1.10 to 3.19). Most of excess investigations were not thought strongly needed by the doctor or the patient. The depression leaflet had no significant effect on any outcome. Conclusions Encouraging patients to raise issues and to discuss symptoms and other health related issues in the consultation improves their satisfaction and perceptions of communication, particularly in short consultations. Doctors do, however, need to elicit expectations to prevent needless investigations.

Illness perceptions and glycaemic control in diabetes: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Diabet. Med. 28, 1300–1310 (2011)

Research output on primary care in Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States: bibliometric analysis

Objective To compare the volume and quality of original research in primary care published by researchers from primary care in the United Kingdom against five countries with well established academic primary care. Design Bibliometric analysis. Setting United Kingdom, United States, Australia, Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands. Studies reviewed Research publications relevant to comprehensive primary care and authored by researchers from primary care, recorded in Medline and Embase, with publication dates 2001-7 inclusive. Main outcome measures Volume of published activity of generalist primary care researchers and the quality of the research output by those publishing the most using citation metrics: numbers of cited papers, proportion of cited papers, and mean citation scores. Results 82 169 papers published between 2001 and 2007 in the six countries were classified as research on primary care. In a 15% pragmatic random sample of these records, 40% of research on primary care from the United Kingdom and 46% from the Netherlands was authored by researchers employed in a primary care setting or employed in academic departments of primary care. The 141 researchers with the highest volume of publications reporting research findings published between 2001 and 2007 (inclusive) authored or part authored 8.3% of the total sample of papers. For authors with the highest proportion of publications cited at least five times, the best performers came from the United States (n=5), United Kingdom (n=4), and the Netherlands (n=2). In the top 10 of authors with the highest proportions of publications achieving 20 or more citations, six were from the United Kingdom and four from the United States. The mean Hirsch index (measure of a researcher’s productivity and impact of the published work) was 14 for the Netherlands, 13 for the United Kingdom, 12 for the United States, 7 for Canada, 4 for Australia, and 3 for Germany. Conclusion This international comparison of the volume and citation rates of papers by researchers from primary care consistently placed UK researchers among the best performers internationally.

Randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors plus supportive care, versus supportive care alone, for mild to moderate depression with somatic symptoms in primary care: the THREAD (THREshold for AntiDepressant response) study

OBJECTIVES To determine (1) the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) treatment plus supportive care, versus supportive care alone, for mild to moderate depression in patients with somatic symptoms in primary care; and (2) the impact of the initial severity of depression on effectiveness and relative costs. To investigate the impact of demographic and social variables. DESIGN The study was a parallel group, open-label, pragmatic randomised controlled trial. SETTING The study took place in a UK primary care setting. Patients were referred by 177 GPs from 115 practices around three academic centres. PARTICIPANTS Patients diagnosed with new episodes of depression and potentially in need of treatment. In total, 602 patients were referred to the study team, of whom 220 were randomised. INTERVENTIONS GPs were asked to provide supportive care to all participants in follow-up consultations 2, 4, 8 and 12 weeks after the baseline assessment, to prescribe an SSRI of their choice to patients in the SSRI plus supportive care arm and to continue treatment for at least 4 months after recovery. They could switch antidepressants during treatment if necessary. They were asked to refrain from prescribing an antidepressant to those in the supportive care alone arm during the first 12 weeks but could prescribe to these patients if treatment became necessary. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome measure was Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) score at 12-week follow-up. Secondary outcome measures were scores on HDRS at 26-week follow-up, Beck Depression Inventory, Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36), Medical Interview Satisfaction Scale (MISS), modified Client Service Receipt Inventory and medical record data. RESULTS SSRIs were received by 87% of patients in the SSRI plus supportive care arm and 20% in the supportive care alone arm. Longitudinal analyses demonstrated statistically significant differences in favour of the SSRI plus supportive care arm in terms of lower HDRS scores and higher scores on the SF-36 and MISS. Significant mean differences in HDRS score adjusted for baseline were found at both follow-up points when analysed separately but were relatively small. The numbers needed to treat for remission (to HDRS > 8) were 6 [95% confidence interval (CI) 4 to 26)] at 12 weeks and 6 (95% CI 3 to 31) at 26 weeks, and for significant improvement (HDRS reduction > or = 50%) were 7 (95% CI 4 to 83) and 5 (95% CI 3 to 13) respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness planes suggested that adding an SSRI to supportive care was probably cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve for utility suggested that adding an SSRI to supportive care was cost-effective at the values of 20,000 pounds-30,000 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year. A poorer outcome on the HDRS was significantly related to greater severity at baseline, a higher physical symptom score and being unemployed. CONCLUSIONS Treatment with an SSRI plus supportive care is more effective than supportive care alone for patients with mild to moderate depression, at least for those with symptoms persisting for 8 weeks and an HRDS score of > or = 12. The additional benefit is relatively small, and may be at least in part a placebo effect, but is probably cost-effective at the level used by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence to make judgements about recommending treatments within the National Health Service. However, further research is required.