BACKGROUND: A large proportion of people with depression and anxiety go unrecognised by their general practitioner (GP). Case-finding does not appear to be effective on its own. AIM: To compare the effectiveness of case-finding followed by computer-generated patient-specific guidelines with usual care for the management of common mental disorders in primary care. DESIGN OF STUDY: Individual patient randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Five general practices in Bristol and Cardiff. METHOD: 762 individuals aged >;/= 16 years scoring >/= 12 on the Clinical Interview Schedule Revised were randomised. The experimental intervention required participants to complete a computerised psychosocial assessment that generated a report for the GP including patient-specific treatment recommendations. The control patients were treated as usual with access to locally agreed guidelines. RESULTS: Participants' 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) score dropped irrespective of treatment allocation. The experimental group had a significantly lower GHQ score at 6 weeks, but not at 6 months. Recovery at 6 months was 3% greater among those receiving the experimental intervention (95% confidence interval [CI] = -4 to 10). Treatment was not significantly associated with quality of life or patient satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Only small benefits are likely from using case-finding followed by patient-specific guidelines to improve clinical management of common mental disorders in primary care. However, depression and anxiety are important public health problems so the utility of such systems should be further investigated.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: A large proportion of people with depression and anxiety go unrecognised by their general practitioner (GP). Case-finding does not appear to be effective on its own. AIM: To compare the effectiveness of case-finding followed by computer-generated patient-specific guidelines with usual care for the management of common mental disorders in primary care. DESIGN OF STUDY: Individual patient randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Five general practices in Bristol and Cardiff. METHOD: 762 individuals aged >/= 16 years scoring >/= 12 on the Clinical Interview Schedule Revised were randomised. The experimental intervention required participants to complete a computerised psychosocial assessment that generated a report for the GP including patient-specific treatment recommendations. The control patients were treated as usual with access to locally agreed guidelines. RESULTS:Participants' 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) score dropped irrespective of treatment allocation. The experimental group had a significantly lower GHQ score at 6 weeks, but not at 6 months. Recovery at 6 months was 3% greater among those receiving the experimental intervention (95% confidence interval [CI] = -4 to 10). Treatment was not significantly associated with quality of life or patient satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Only small benefits are likely from using case-finding followed by patient-specific guidelines to improve clinical management of common mental disorders in primary care. However, depression and anxiety are important public health problems so the utility of such systems should be further investigated.
Authors: Michael P Pignone; Bradley N Gaynes; Jerry L Rushton; Catherine Mills Burchell; C Tracy Orleans; Cynthia D Mulrow; Kathleen N Lohr Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2002-05-21 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Bruce L Rollman; Barbara H Hanusa; Henry J Lowe; Trae Gilbert; Wishwa N Kapoor; Herbert C Schulberg Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: David Blum; Sunil X Raj; Rolf Oberholzer; Ingrid I Riphagen; Florian Strasser; Stein Kaasa Journal: Patient Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Kaveh G Shojania; Alison Jennings; Alain Mayhew; Craig R Ramsay; Martin P Eccles; Jeremy Grimshaw Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2009-07-08
Authors: Nathan M Souza; Rolf J Sebaldt; Jean A Mackay; Jeanette C Prorok; Lorraine Weise-Kelly; Tamara Navarro; Nancy L Wilczynski; R Brian Haynes Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2011-08-03 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: George Salaminios; Larisa Duffy; Anthony Ades; Ricardo Araya; Katherine S Button; Rachel Churchill; Tim Croudace; Catherine Derrick; Padraig Dixon; Christopher Dowrick; Simon Gilbody; William Hollingworth; Vivien Jones; Tony Kendrick; David Kessler; Daphne Kounali; Paul Lanham; Alice Malpass; Tim J Peters; Derek Riozzie; Jude Robinson; Debbie Sharp; Laura Thomas; Nicky J Welton; Nicola Wiles; Glyn Lewis Journal: Trials Date: 2017-10-24 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Joshua E J Buckman; Rob Saunders; Zachary D Cohen; Katherine Clarke; Gareth Ambler; Robert J DeRubeis; Simon Gilbody; Steven D Hollon; Tony Kendrick; Edward Watkins; Ian R White; Glyn Lewis; Stephen Pilling Journal: Wellcome Open Res Date: 2020-04-01
Authors: J E J Buckman; R Saunders; J Stott; L-L Arundell; C O'Driscoll; M R Davies; T C Eley; S D Hollon; T Kendrick; G Ambler; Z D Cohen; E Watkins; S Gilbody; N Wiles; D Kessler; D Richards; S Brabyn; E Littlewood; R J DeRubeis; G Lewis; S Pilling Journal: Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci Date: 2021-06-04 Impact factor: 6.892
Authors: Joshua E J Buckman; Rob Saunders; Zachary D Cohen; Phoebe Barnett; Katherine Clarke; Gareth Ambler; Robert J DeRubeis; Simon Gilbody; Steven D Hollon; Tony Kendrick; Edward Watkins; Nicola Wiles; David Kessler; David Richards; Deborah Sharp; Sally Brabyn; Elizabeth Littlewood; Chris Salisbury; Ian R White; Glyn Lewis; Stephen Pilling Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2021-04-14 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: Joshua E J Buckman; Rob Saunders; Joshua Stott; Zachary D Cohen; Laura-Louise Arundell; Thalia C Eley; Steven D Hollon; Tony Kendrick; Gareth Ambler; Edward Watkins; Simon Gilbody; David Kessler; Nicola Wiles; David Richards; Sally Brabyn; Elizabeth Littlewood; Robert J DeRubeis; Glyn Lewis; Stephen Pilling Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2022-05-01 Impact factor: 21.596