P L Cornwall1, J Scott. 1. University Department of Psychiatry, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many policy and research documents on the treatment of depression in primary care suggest that general practitioners (GPs) should make use of clinical guidelines. AIM: To describe the content of peer-reviewed guidelines for the detection and treatment of depression in primary care and help GPs identify the one most useful to their own needs. METHOD: Guidelines were evaluated by an explicit method using the Institute of Medicine assessment instrument and according to six key clinical management questions identified as important by GPs and psychiatrists. RESULTS: Only five (30%) of the published guidelines identified met all the pre-defined inclusion criteria. Total scores for development process and content ranged from 54% to 82%. Validity scores ranged from 52% to 88%. No guideline answered all the key questions identified by clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Only two guidelines conform to the quality standard of a clinical practice guideline. One covers all aspects of detection and management of depression in primary care but gives no advice on first-line choice of antidepressant, while the other focuses only on medication and fails to explore problems of case detection or to consider non-pharmacological treatments. However, taken together they do cover most of the key clinical issues in a reliable and valid manner. The identified guidelines vary considerably in both utility and clinical applicability.
BACKGROUND: Many policy and research documents on the treatment of depression in primary care suggest that general practitioners (GPs) should make use of clinical guidelines. AIM: To describe the content of peer-reviewed guidelines for the detection and treatment of depression in primary care and help GPs identify the one most useful to their own needs. METHOD: Guidelines were evaluated by an explicit method using the Institute of Medicine assessment instrument and according to six key clinical management questions identified as important by GPs and psychiatrists. RESULTS: Only five (30%) of the published guidelines identified met all the pre-defined inclusion criteria. Total scores for development process and content ranged from 54% to 82%. Validity scores ranged from 52% to 88%. No guideline answered all the key questions identified by clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Only two guidelines conform to the quality standard of a clinical practice guideline. One covers all aspects of detection and management of depression in primary care but gives no advice on first-line choice of antidepressant, while the other focuses only on medication and fails to explore problems of case detection or to consider non-pharmacological treatments. However, taken together they do cover most of the key clinical issues in a reliable and valid manner. The identified guidelines vary considerably in both utility and clinical applicability.
Authors: H C Schulberg; M R Block; M J Madonia; C P Scott; E Rodriguez; S D Imber; J Perel; J Lave; P R Houck; J L Coulehan Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 1996-10
Authors: Kelsey Hegarty; Jane Gunn; Grant Blashki; Frances Griffiths; Tony Dowell; Tony Kendrick Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Marijn A Prins; Peter F M Verhaak; Mirrian Hilbink-Smolders; Peter Spreeuwenberg; Miranda G H Laurant; Klaas van der Meer; Harm W J van Marwijk; Brenda W J H Penninx; Jozien M Bensing Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2011-11-18 Impact factor: 3.630