OBJECTIVES: to determine (cost)-effectiveness of a stepped-care intervention programme among subjects ≥ 75 years who screened positive for depressive symptoms in general practice. DESIGN: the pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial with 12-month follow-up. SETTING: sixty-seven Dutch general practices. SUBJECTS: two hundred and thirty-nine subjects≥ 75 years screened positive for untreated depressive symptoms (15-item Geriatric Depression Scale ≥ 5). METHODS: usual care (34 practices, 118 subjects) was compared with the stepped-care intervention (33 practices, 121 subjects) consisting of three steps: individual counselling; Coping with Depression course; and-if indicated-referral back to general practitioner to discuss further treatment. Measurements included severity of depressive symptoms [Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS)], quality of life, mortality and costs. RESULTS: at baseline subjects mostly were mildly/moderately depressed. At 6 months MADRS scores had improved more in the usual care than the intervention group (-2.9 versus -1.1 points, P=0.032), but not at 12 months (-3.1 versus -4.6, P=0.084). No significant differences were found within two separate age groups (75-79 years and ≥ 80 years). In intervention practices, 83% accepted referral to the stepped-care programme, and 19% accepted course participation. The control group appeared to have received more psychological care. CONCLUSIONS: among older subjects who screened positive for depressive symptoms, an offered stepped-care intervention programme was not (cost)-effective compared with usual care, possibly due to a low uptake of the course offer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN 71142851v.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: to determine (cost)-effectiveness of a stepped-care intervention programme among subjects ≥ 75 years who screened positive for depressive symptoms in general practice. DESIGN: the pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial with 12-month follow-up. SETTING: sixty-seven Dutch general practices. SUBJECTS: two hundred and thirty-nine subjects ≥ 75 years screened positive for untreated depressive symptoms (15-item Geriatric Depression Scale ≥ 5). METHODS: usual care (34 practices, 118 subjects) was compared with the stepped-care intervention (33 practices, 121 subjects) consisting of three steps: individual counselling; Coping with Depression course; and-if indicated-referral back to general practitioner to discuss further treatment. Measurements included severity of depressive symptoms [Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS)], quality of life, mortality and costs. RESULTS: at baseline subjects mostly were mildly/moderately depressed. At 6 months MADRS scores had improved more in the usual care than the intervention group (-2.9 versus -1.1 points, P=0.032), but not at 12 months (-3.1 versus -4.6, P=0.084). No significant differences were found within two separate age groups (75-79 years and ≥ 80 years). In intervention practices, 83% accepted referral to the stepped-care programme, and 19% accepted course participation. The control group appeared to have received more psychological care. CONCLUSIONS: among older subjects who screened positive for depressive symptoms, an offered stepped-care intervention programme was not (cost)-effective compared with usual care, possibly due to a low uptake of the course offer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN 71142851v.
Authors: Alison Salloum; John Robst; Michael S Scheeringa; Judith A Cohen; Wei Wang; Tanya K Murphy; David F Tolin; Eric A Storch Journal: Child Psychiatry Hum Dev Date: 2014-02
Authors: Thomas Grochtdreis; Christian Brettschneider; Annemarie Wegener; Birgit Watzke; Steffi Riedel-Heller; Martin Härter; Hans-Helmut König Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-05-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Brett D Thombs; Nazanin Saadat; Kira E Riehm; Justin Michael Karter; Akansha Vaswani; Bonnie K Andrews; Peter Simons; Lisa Cosgrove Journal: BMC Med Date: 2017-08-09 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Alide D Pols; Karen Schipper; Debbie Overkamp; Susan E van Dijk; Judith E Bosmans; Harm W J van Marwijk; Marcel C Adriaanse; Maurits W van Tulder Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2017-02-23 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Alide D Pols; Karen Schipper; Debbie Overkamp; Harm W J van Marwijk; Maurits W van Tulder; Marcel C Adriaanse Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2018-12-23 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Jeanet Blom; Wendy den Elzen; Anne H van Houwelingen; Margot Heijmans; Theo Stijnen; Wilbert Van den Hout; Jacobijn Gussekloo Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Alide D Pols; Susan E van Dijk; Judith E Bosmans; Trynke Hoekstra; Harm W J van Marwijk; Maurits W van Tulder; Marcel C Adriaanse Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Hanneke Stam; Johannes C van der Wouden; Jacqueline G Hugtenburg; Jos W R Twisk; Henriëtte E van der Horst; Otto R Maarsingh Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-10-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Maartje Witlox; Vivivan Kraaij; Nadia Garnefski; Margot W M de Waal; Filip Smit; Erik Hoencamp; Jacobijn Gussekloo; Ernst T Bohlmeijer; Philip Spinhoven Journal: Trials Date: 2018-09-17 Impact factor: 2.279