BACKGROUND: Anxiety disorders are common in general practice and are associated with several problems regarding recognition and management. AIM: To systematically evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving recognition, diagnosis, and management of patients with anxiety disorders. DESIGN OF STUDY: Systematic review. METHOD: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and the Cochrane Clinical Trials' Register were searched up until 2003. Randomised controlled trials, controlled before/after trials, and interrupted time series for professional, organisational, financial, and regulatory interventions were eligible. Primary effect measures consisted of anxiety outcomes, diagnosis, prescription, and referral. Two reviewers independently made eligibility judgments: eight out of 563 articles were found to be eligible. Two reviewers participated independently in the quality assessment and data extraction process using a standardised form based on the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care checklist. Relative risks or standardised mean differences were calculated when possible. RESULTS: Four professional interventions and three organisational interventions were examined. In general, the professional interventions seemed to increase recognition, referral, and prescription as well as improving anxiety outcomes. Two out of three organisational interventions showed a positive effect on anxiety outcomes. The one study that took prescription into account showed no effect. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of care for patients with anxiety can be improved. A combination of professional and organisational interventions in which an external expert is introduced seems to be most promising. Additional research is nevertheless necessary to determine the exact effects of such interventions using patient effect measures, economic evaluations, and feasibility studies.
BACKGROUND:Anxiety disorders are common in general practice and are associated with several problems regarding recognition and management. AIM: To systematically evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving recognition, diagnosis, and management of patients with anxiety disorders. DESIGN OF STUDY: Systematic review. METHOD: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and the Cochrane Clinical Trials' Register were searched up until 2003. Randomised controlled trials, controlled before/after trials, and interrupted time series for professional, organisational, financial, and regulatory interventions were eligible. Primary effect measures consisted of anxiety outcomes, diagnosis, prescription, and referral. Two reviewers independently made eligibility judgments: eight out of 563 articles were found to be eligible. Two reviewers participated independently in the quality assessment and data extraction process using a standardised form based on the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care checklist. Relative risks or standardised mean differences were calculated when possible. RESULTS: Four professional interventions and three organisational interventions were examined. In general, the professional interventions seemed to increase recognition, referral, and prescription as well as improving anxiety outcomes. Two out of three organisational interventions showed a positive effect on anxiety outcomes. The one study that took prescription into account showed no effect. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of care for patients with anxiety can be improved. A combination of professional and organisational interventions in which an external expert is introduced seems to be most promising. Additional research is nevertheless necessary to determine the exact effects of such interventions using patient effect measures, economic evaluations, and feasibility studies.
Authors: J M Grimshaw; L Shirran; R Thomas; G Mowatt; C Fraser; L Bero; R Grilli; E Harvey; A Oxman; M A O'Brien Journal: Med Care Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: J C Ballenger; J R Davidson; Y Lecrubier; D J Nutt; T D Borkovec; K Rickels; D J Stein; H U Wittchen Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2001 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Anna Dt Muntingh; Christina M van der Feltz-Cornelis; Harm Wj van Marwijk; Philip Spinhoven; Anton Jlm van Balkom Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2016-06-02 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Kristen McCarter; Ben Britton; Amanda L Baker; Sean A Halpin; Alison K Beck; Gregory Carter; Chris Wratten; Judith Bauer; Erin Forbes; Debbie Booth; Luke Wolfenden Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Eric van Rijswijk; Hein van Hout; Eloy van de Lisdonk; Frans Zitman; Chris van Weel Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2009-07-20 Impact factor: 2.497