ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Not enough is known about universal prevention of depression in adults. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention to prevent major depression. DESIGN: Multicenter, cluster randomized trial with sites randomly assigned to usual care or an intervention. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01151982). SETTING: 10 primary care centers in each of 7 cities in Spain. PARTICIPANTS: Two primary care physicians (PCPs) and 5236 nondepressed adult patients were randomly sampled from each center; 3326 patients consented and were eligible to participate. INTERVENTION: For each patient, PCPs communicated individual risk for depression and personal predictors of risk and developed a psychosocial program tailored to prevent depression. MEASUREMENTS: New cases of major depression, assessed every 6 months for 18 months. RESULTS: At 18 months, 7.39% of patients in the intervention group (95% CI, 5.85% to 8.95%) developed major depression compared with 9.40% in the control (usual care) group (CI, 7.89% to 10.92%) (absolute difference, -2.01 percentage points [CI, -4.18 to 0.16 percentage points]; P = 0.070). Depression incidence was lower in the intervention centers in 5 cities and similar between intervention and control centers in 2 cities. LIMITATION: Potential self-selection bias due to nonconsenting patients. CONCLUSION: Compared with usual care, an intervention based on personal predictors of risk for depression implemented by PCPs provided a modest but nonsignificant reduction in the incidence of major depression. Additional study of this approach may be warranted. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Institute of Health Carlos III.
Subject(s)
Depressive Disorder, Major/prevention & control , Primary Health Care/methods , Depressive Disorder, Major/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Risk Assessment/methods , Spain/epidemiologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The predictD study developed and validated a risk algorithm for predicting the onset of major depression in primary care. We aimed to explore the opinion of patients about knowing their risk for depression and the values and criteria upon which these opinions are based. METHODS: A maximum variation sample of patients was taken, stratified by city, age, gender, immigrant status, socio-economic status and lifetime depression. The study participants were 52 patients belonging to 13 urban health centres in seven different cities around Spain. Seven Focus Groups (FGs) were given held with primary care patients, one for each of the seven participating cities. RESULTS: The results showed that patients generally welcomed knowing their risk for depression. Furthermore, in light of available evidence several patients proposed potential changes in their lifestyles to prevent depression. Patients generally preferred to ask their General Practitioners (GPs) for advice, though mental health specialists were also mentioned. They suggested that GPs undertake interventions tailored to each patient, from a "patient-centred" approach, with certain communication skills, and giving advice to help patients cope with the knowledge that they are at risk of becoming depressed. CONCLUSIONS: Patients are pleased to be informed about their risk for depression. We detected certain beliefs, attitudes, values, expectations and behaviour among the patients that were potentially useful for future primary prevention programmes on depression.
