Use of Mental Health Services for Patients Diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorders in Primary Care.

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is one of the most disabling diseases worldwide, generating high use of health services. Previous studies have shown that Mental Health Services (MHS) use is associated with patient and Family Physician (FP) factors. The aim of this study was to investigate MHS use in a naturalistic sample of MDD outpatients and the factors influencing use of services in specialized psychiatric care, to know the natural mental healthcare pathway. Non-randomized clinical trial including newly depressed Primary Care (PC) patients (n = 263) with a 12-month follow-up (from 2013 to 2015). Patient sociodemographic variables were assessed along with clinical variables (mental disorder diagnosis, severity of depression or anxiety, quality of life, disability, beliefs about illness and medication). FP (n = 53) variables were also evaluated. A multilevel logistic regression analysis was performed to assess factors associated with public or private MHS use. Subjects were clustered by FP. Having previously used MHS was associated with the use of MHS. The use of public MHS was associated with worse perception of quality of life. No other sociodemographic, clinical, nor FP variables were associated with the use of MHS. Patient self-perception is a factor that influences the use of services, in addition to having used them before. This is in line with Value-Based Healthcare, which propose to put the focus on the patient, who is the one who must define which health outcomes are relevant to him.

Diagnostic accuracy and treatment approach to depression in primary care: predictive factors.

Objective: The study assessed the predictive factors of diagnostic accuracy and treatment approach (antidepressants versus active monitoring) for depression in primary care. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study that uses information from a naturalistic prospective controlled trial performed in Barcelona (Spain) enrolling newly diagnosed patients with mild to moderate depression by GPs. Treatment approach was based on clinical judgement. Diagnosis was later assessed according to DSM-IV criteria using Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID-I) interview by an external researcher. Patients (sociodemographic, psychiatric diagnosis, severity of depression and anxiety, health-related quality of life, disability, beliefs about medication and illness and comorbidities) and GP factors associated with diagnostic accuracy and treatment approach were assessed using multilevel logistic regression. Variables with missing data were imputed through multiple imputations. Results: Two hundred sixty-three patients were recruited by 53 GPs. Mean age was 51 years (SD = 15). Thirty percent met DSM-IV criteria for major depression. Mean depression symptomatology was moderate-severe. Using multivariate analyses, patients' beliefs about medicines were the only variable associated with the antidepressant approach. Specialization in general medicine and being a resident tutor were associated with a more accurate diagnosis. Conclusions: Clinical depression diagnosis by GPs was not always associated with a formal diagnosis through a SCID-I. GPs' training background was central to an adequate depression diagnosis. Patients' beliefs in medication were the only factor associated with treatment approach. More resources should be allocated to improving the diagnosis of depression.