Distinguishing emotional distress from mental disorder in primary care: a qualitative exploration of the Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Primary care clinicians see people experiencing the full range of mental health problems. Determining when symptoms reflect disorder is complex. The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) uniquely distinguishes general distress from depressive and anxiety disorders. It may support diagnostic conversations and targeting of treatment. AIM: To explore peoples' experiences of completing the 4DSQ and their perceptions of their resulting score profile across distress, depression, anxiety, and physical symptoms. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study was conducted in the UK with people recruited from primary care and community settings. METHOD: Participants completed the 4DSQ then took part in semi-structured telephone interviews. They were interviewed about their experience of completing the 4DSQ, their perceptions of their scores across four dimensions, and the perceived utility if used with a clinician. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Twenty-four interviews were conducted. Most participants found the 4DSQ easy to complete and reported that scores across the four dimensions aligned well with their symptom experience. Distinct scores for distress, depression, and anxiety appeared to support improved self-understanding. Some valued the opportunity to discuss their scores and provide relevant context. Many felt the use of the 4DSQ with clinicians would be helpful and likely to support treatment decisions, although some were concerned about time-limited consultations. CONCLUSION: Distinguishing general distress from depressive and anxiety disorders aligned well with people's experience of symptoms. Use of the 4DSQ as part of mental health consultations may support targeting of treatment and personalisation of care.

Patient-reported outcome measures for monitoring primary care patients with depression: the PROMDEP cluster RCT and economic evaluation.

Background: Guidelines on the management of depression recommend that practitioners use patient-reported outcome measures for the follow-up monitoring of symptoms, but there is a lack of evidence of benefit in terms of patient outcomes. Objective: To test using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 questionnaire as a patient-reported outcome measure for monitoring depression, training practitioners in interpreting scores and giving patients feedback. Design: Parallel-group, cluster-randomised superiority trial; 1 : 1 allocation to intervention and control. Setting: UK primary care (141 group general practices in England and Wales). Inclusion criteria: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with a new episode of depressive disorder or symptoms, recruited mainly through medical record searches, plus opportunistically in consultations. Exclusions: Current depression treatment, dementia, psychosis, substance misuse and risk of suicide. Intervention: Administration of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 questionnaire with patient feedback soon after diagnosis, and at follow-up 10-35 days later, compared with usual care. Primary outcome: Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, symptom scores at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes: Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, scores at 26 weeks; antidepressant drug treatment and mental health service contacts; social functioning (Work and Social Adjustment Scale) and quality of life (EuroQol 5-Dimension, five-level) at 12 and 26 weeks; service use over 26 weeks to calculate NHS costs; patient satisfaction at 26 weeks (Medical Informant Satisfaction Scale); and adverse events. Sample size: The original target sample of 676 patients recruited was reduced to 554 due to finding a significant correlation between baseline and follow-up values for the primary outcome measure. Randomisation: Remote computerised randomisation with minimisation by recruiting university, small/large practice and urban/rural location. Blinding: Blinding of participants was impossible given the open cluster design, but self-report outcome measures prevented observer bias. Analysis was blind to allocation. Analysis: Linear mixed models were used, adjusted for baseline depression, baseline anxiety, sociodemographic factors, and clustering including practice as random effect. Quality of life and costs were analysed over 26 weeks. Qualitative interviews: Practitioner and patient interviews were conducted to reflect on trial processes and use of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 using the Normalization Process Theory framework. Results: Three hundred and two patients were recruited in intervention arm practices and 227 patients were recruited in control practices. Primary outcome data were collected for 252 (83.4%) and 195 (85.9%), respectively. No significant difference in Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, score was found at 12 weeks (adjusted mean difference -0.46, 95% confidence interval -2.16 to 1.26). Nor were significant differences found in Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd Edition, score at 26 weeks, social functioning, patient satisfaction or adverse events. EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, quality-of-life scores favoured the intervention arm at 26 weeks (adjusted mean difference 0.053, 95% confidence interval 0.013 to 0.093). However, quality-adjusted life-years over 26 weeks were not significantly greater (difference 0.0013, 95% confidence interval -0.0157 to 0.0182). Costs were lower in the intervention arm but, again, not significantly (-£163, 95% confidence interval -£349 to £28). Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses, therefore, suggested that the intervention was dominant over usual care, but with considerable uncertainty around the point estimates. Patients valued using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 to compare scores at baseline and follow-up, whereas practitioner views were more mixed, with some considering it too time-consuming. Conclusions: We found no evidence of improved depression management or outcome at 12 weeks from using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, but patients' quality of life was better at 26 weeks, perhaps because feedback of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores increased their awareness of improvement in their depression and reduced their anxiety. Further research in primary care should evaluate patient-reported outcome measures including anxiety symptoms, administered remotely, with algorithms delivering clear recommendations for changes in treatment. Study registration: This study is registered as IRAS250225 and ISRCTN17299295. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/42/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 17. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Depression is common, can be disabling and costs the nation billions. The National Health Service recommends general practitioners who treat people with depression use symptom questionnaires to help assess whether those people are getting better over time. A symptom questionnaire is one type of patient-reported outcome measure. Patient-reported outcome measures appear to benefit people having therapy and mental health care, but this approach has not been tested thoroughly in general practice. Most people with depression are treated in general practice, so it is important to test patient-reported outcome measures there, too. In this study, we tested whether using a patient-reported outcome measure helps people with depression get better more quickly. The study was a 'randomised controlled trial' in general practices, split into two groups. In one group, people with depression completed the Patient Health Questionnaire, or 'PHQ-9', patient-reported outcome measure, which measures nine symptoms of depression. In the other group, people with depression were treated as usual without the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. We fed the results of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 back to the people with depression themselves to show them how severe their depression was and asked them to discuss the results with the practitioners looking after them. We found no differences between the patient-reported outcome measure group and the control group in their level of depression; their work or social life; their satisfaction with care from their practice; or their use of medicines, therapy or specialist care for depression. However, we did find that their quality of life was improved at 6 months, and the costs of the National Health Service services they used were lower. Using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 can improve patients' quality of life, perhaps by making them more aware of improvement in their depression symptoms, and less anxious as a result. Future research should test using a patient-reported outcome measure that includes anxiety and processing the answers through a computer to give practitioners clearer advice on possible changes to treatment for depression.

Depression follow-up monitoring with the PHQ-9: an open cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Outcome monitoring of depression treatment is recommended but there is a lack of evidence on patient benefit in primary care. AIM: To test monitoring depression using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) with patient feedback. DESIGN AND SETTING: An open cluster-randomised controlled trial was undertaken in 141 group practices. METHOD: Adults with new depressive episodes were recruited through record searches and opportunistically. The exclusion criteria were as follows: dementia; psychosis; substance misuse; and suicide risk. The PHQ-9 was administered soon after diagnosis, and 10-35 days later. The primary outcome was the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) score at 12 weeks. The secondary outcomes were as follows: BDI-II at 26 weeks; Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS) and EuroQol EQ-5D-5L quality of life at 12 and 26 weeks; antidepressant treatment; mental health and social service contacts; adverse events, and Medical Interview Satisfaction Scale (MISS) over 26 weeks. RESULTS: In total, 302 patients were recruited to the intervention arm and 227 to the controls. At 12 weeks, 254 (84.1%) and 199 (87.7%) were followed-up, respectively. Only 40.9% of patients in the intervention had a GP follow-up PHQ-9 recorded. There was no significant difference in BDI-II score at 12 weeks (mean difference -0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.16 to 1.26; adjusted for baseline depression, baseline anxiety, sociodemographic factors, and clustering by practice). EQ-5D-5L quality-of-life scores were higher in the intervention arm at 26 weeks (adjusted mean difference 0.053; 95% CI = 0.013 to 0.093. A clinically significant difference in depression at 26 weeks could not be ruled out. No significant differences were found in social functioning, adverse events, or satisfaction. In a per-protocol analysis, antidepressant use and mental health contacts were significantly greater in patients in the intervention arm with a recorded follow-up PHQ-9 (P = 0.025 and P = 0.010, respectively). CONCLUSION: No evidence was found of improved depression outcome at 12 weeks from monitoring. The findings of possible benefits over 26 weeks warrant replication, investigating possible mechanisms, preferably with automated delivery of monitoring and more instructive feedback.

Supporting people with pain-related distress in primary care consultations: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Low mood and distress are commonly reported by people who have persistent musculoskeletal (MSK) pain, which may be labelled as 'depression'. It is important to understand how pain-related distress is conceptualised and managed in primary care consultations. AIM: To explore understanding of pain-related distress and depression from the perspectives of people with persistent MSK pain and GPs. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study with people with persistent MSK pain and GPs from different parts of the UK. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews conducted remotely and data analysed thematically. RESULTS: Most participants reported challenges in distinguishing between distress and depression in the context of persistent MSK pain, but also described strategies to make this distinction. Some people described how acceptance of their situation was key and involved optimism about the future and creation of a new identity. Some GPs expressed 'therapeutic nihilism', with uncertainty about the cause of pain and how to manage people with both persistent MSK pain and distress in primary care consultations, while GPs who could identify and build on optimism with patients described how to help the patient to move forwards. CONCLUSION: This study offers a framework for the primary care consultation with patients presenting with pain-related distress. GPs should recognise the impact of persistent MSK pain on the patient and support the person in coming to terms with their pain, explore how the person feels about the future, encourage optimism, and support self-management strategies.

From substance to process: A meta-ethnographic review of how healthcare professionals and patients understand placebos and their effects in primary care.

Research suggests that a 'placebo' can improve conditions common in primary care including pain, depression and irritable bowel syndrome. However, disagreement persists over the definition and clinical relevance of placebo treatments. We conducted a meta-ethnographic, mixed-research systematic review to explore how healthcare professionals and patients understand placebos and their effects in primary care. We conducted systematic literature searches of five databases - augmented by reference chaining, key author searches and expert opinion - related to views on placebos, placebo effects and placebo use in primary care. From a total of 34 eligible quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods articles reporting findings from 28 studies, 21 were related to healthcare professionals' views, 11 were related to patients' views and two were related to both groups. In the studies under review, healthcare professionals reported using placebos at markedly different frequencies. This was highly influenced by how placebos were defined in the studies. Both healthcare professionals and patients predominantly defined placebos as material substances such as 'inert' pills, despite this definition being inconsistent with current scientific thinking. However, healthcare professionals also, but less prevalently, defined placebos in a different way: as contextual processes. This better concurs with modern placebo definitions, which focus on context, ritual, meaning and enactivism. However, given the enduring ubiquity of substance definitions, for both healthcare professionals and patients, we question the practical, clinical validity of stretching the term 'placebo' towards its modern iteration. To produce 'placebo effects', therefore, primary healthcare professionals may be better off abandoning placebo terminology altogether.

A discursive exploration of public perspectives on placebos and their effects.

There is increasing evidence that placebos could be effective in clinical practice. However, knowledge of public perspectives on placebos is underdeveloped. We conducted a discourse analysis of internet comments on news articles related to placebos, aiming to improve this knowledge for clinicians and researchers. We developed two discursive constructs of the placebo. The dominant construct of the 'placebo pill' informs a paradoxical understanding of placebos that closes down treatment. The less-prevalent counter-discursive construct of the 'treatment process' frames placebos as potentially viable within modern evidence-based medicine. We discuss the opportunities and challenges of this alternative understanding of placebos.

What techniques might be used to harness placebo effects in non-malignant pain? A literature review and survey to develop a taxonomy.

OBJECTIVES: Placebo effects can be clinically meaningful but are seldom fully exploited in clinical practice. This review aimed to facilitate translational research by producing a taxonomy of techniques that could augment placebo analgesia in clinical practice. DESIGN: Literature review and survey. METHODS: We systematically analysed methods which could plausibly be used to elicit placebo effects in 169 clinical and laboratory-based studies involving non-malignant pain, drawn from seven systematic reviews. In a validation exercise, we surveyed 33 leading placebo researchers (mean 12 years’ research experience, SD 9.8), who were asked to comment on and add to the draft taxonomy derived from the literature. RESULTS: The final taxonomy defines 30 procedures that may contribute to placebo effects in clinical and experimental research, proposes 60 possible clinical applications and classifies procedures into five domains: the patient’s characteristics and belief (5 procedures and 11 clinical applications), the practitioner’s characteristics and beliefs (2 procedures and 4 clinical applications), the healthcare setting (8 procedures and 13 clinical applications), treatment characteristics (8 procedures and 14 clinical applications) and the patientâ€"practitioner interaction (7 procedures and 18 clinical applications). CONCLUSION: The taxonomy provides a preliminary and novel tool with potential to guide translational research aiming to harness placebo effects for patient benefit in practice.

'You feel like your whole world is caving in': A qualitative study of primary care patients' conceptualisations of emotional distress.

General practitioners are tasked with determining the nature of patients' emotional distress and providing appropriate care. For patients whose symptoms appear to fall near the 'boundaries' of psychiatric disorder, this can be difficult with important implications for treatment. There is a lack of qualitative research among patients with symptoms severe enough to warrant consultation, but where general practitioners have refrained from diagnosis. We aimed to explore how patients in this potentially large group conceptualise their symptoms and consequently investigate lay understandings of complex distinctions between emotional distress and psychiatric disorder. Interviews were conducted with 20 primary care patients whom general practitioners had identified as experiencing emotional distress, but had not diagnosed with major depressive disorder. Participants described severe emotional experiences with substantial impact on their lives. The term 'depression' was used in many different ways; however, despite severity, they often considered their emotional experience to be different to their perceived notions of 'actual' depression or mental illness. Where anxiety was mentioned, use appeared to refer to an underlying generalised state. Participants drew on complex, sometimes fluid and often theoretically coherent conceptualisations of their emotional distress, as related to, but distinct from, mental disorder. These conceptualisations differ from those frequently drawn on in research and treatment guidelines, compounding the difficulty for general practitioners. Developing models of psychological symptoms that draw on patient experience and integrate psychological/psychiatric theory may help patients understand the nature of their experience and, critically, provide the basis for a broader range of primary care interventions.

Developing an Unguided Internet-Delivered Intervention for Emotional Distress in Primary Care Patients: Applying Common Factor and Person-Based Approaches.

BACKGROUND: Developing effective, unguided Internet interventions for mental health represents a challenge. Without structured human guidance, engagement with these interventions is often limited and the effectiveness reduced. If their effectiveness can be increased, they have great potential for broad, low-cost dissemination. Improving unguided Internet interventions for mental health requires a renewed focus on the proposed underlying mechanisms of symptom improvement and the involvement of target users from the outset. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to develop an unguided e-mental health intervention for distress in primary care patients, drawing on meta-theory of psychotherapeutic change and utilizing the person-based approach (PBA) to guide iterative qualitative piloting with patients. METHODS: Common factors meta-theory informed the selection and structure of therapeutic content, enabling flexibility whilst retaining the proposed necessary ingredients for effectiveness. A logic model was designed outlining intervention components and proposed mechanisms underlying improvement. The PBA provided a framework for systematically incorporating target-user perspective into the intervention development. Primary care patients (N=20) who had consulted with emotional distress in the last 12 months took part in exploratory qualitative interviews, and a subsample (n=13) undertook think-aloud interviews with a prototype of the intervention. RESULTS: A flexible intervention was developed, to be used as and when patients need, diverting from a more traditional, linear approach. Based on the in-depth qualitative findings, disorder terms such as "depression" were avoided, and discussions of psychological symptoms were placed in the context of stressful life events. Think-aloud interviews showed that patients were positive about the design and structure of the intervention. On the basis of patient feedback, modifications were made to increase immediate access to all therapeutic techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Detailing theoretical assumptions underlying Internet interventions for mental health, and integrating this approach with systematic in-depth qualitative research with target patients is important. These strategies may provide novel ways for addressing the challenges of unguided delivery. The resulting intervention, Healthy Paths, will be evaluated in primary care-based randomized controlled trials, and deployed as a massive open online intervention (MOOI).