Literature DB >> 10675118

Effects of a clinical-practice guideline and practice-based education on detection and outcome of depression in primary care: Hampshire Depression Project randomised controlled trial.

C Thompson1, A L Kinmonth, L Stevens, R C Peveler, A Stevens, K J Ostler, R M Pickering, N G Baker, A Henson, J Preece, D Cooper, M J Campbell.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Depression is a major individual and public-health burden throughout the world and is managed mainly in primary care. The most effective strategy to reduce this burden has been believed to be education of primary-care practitioners. We tested this assumption by assessing the effectiveness of an educational programme based on a clinical-practice guideline in improving the recognition and outcome of primary-care depression.
METHODS: We carried out a randomised controlled trial in a representative sample of 60 primary-care practices (26% of the total) in an English health district. Education was delivered to practice teams and quality tested by feedback from participants and expert raters. The primary endpoints were recognition of depression, defined by the hospital anxiety and depression (HAD) scale, and clinical improvement. Analysis was by intention to treat.
FINDINGS: The education was well received by participants, 80% of whom thought it would change their management of patients with depression. 21409 patients were screened, of whom 4192 were classified as depressed by the HAD scale. The sensitivity of physicians to depressive symptoms was 39% in the intervention group and 36% in the control group after education (odds ratio 1.2 [95% CI 0.88-1.61]). The outcome of depressed patients as a whole at 6 weeks or 6 months after the assessment did not significantly improve.
INTERPRETATION: Although well received, this in-practice programme, which was designed to convey the current consensus on best practice for the care of depression, did not deliver improvements in recognition of or recovery from depression.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10675118     DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(99)03171-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet        ISSN: 0140-6736            Impact factor:   79.321


  117 in total

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

Authors:  T Kendrick
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-01-22

2.  Depression management clinics in general practice? Some aspects lend themselves to the mini-clinic approach.

Authors:  T Kendrick
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-02-26

3.  Should depression be managed as a chronic disease?

Authors:  G Andrews
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-02-17

4.  Improving outcomes in depression.

Authors:  M Von Korff; D Goldberg
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-10-27

5.  [Program of mental health training for family and community medicine residents: the Zaragoza model].

Authors:  J García-Campayoa; L Claraco; F Orozco; S Lou; F Borrell; E Arévalo; A Seva-Fernández; A Pérez-Poza; A Monreal
Journal:  Aten Primaria       Date:  2001-05-31       Impact factor: 1.137

6.  Postnatal depression and screening: too broad a sweep?

Authors:  Margaret Oates
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 5.386

7.  Quality improvement report: Effect of a multifaceted approach to detecting and managing depression in primary care.

Authors:  Jan Scott; Alison Thorne; Peter Horn
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-10-26

8.  How to change clinical behaviour: no answers yet.

Authors:  David Jewell
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 5.386

9.  Efforts to ban direct-to-consumer advertising in New Zealand: a call to action.

Authors:  Jerome R Hoffman; Richelle J Cooper
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 5.386

10.  Confidentiality: consent is not sufficient.

Authors:  Paul Thornton
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 5.386

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.