Pharmacological and psychosocial treatment of depression in primary care: Low intensity and poor adherence and continuity.

BACKGROUND: Primary health care bears the main responsibility for treating depression in most countries. However, few studies have comprehensively investigated provision of pharmacological and psychosocial treatments, their continuity, or patient attitudes and adherence to treatment in primary care. METHODS: In the Vantaa Primary Care Depression Study, 1111 consecutive primary care patients in the City of Vantaa, Finland, were screened for depression with Prime-MD, and 137 were diagnosed with DSM-IV depressive disorders via SCID-I/P and SCID-II interviews. The 100 patients with current major depressive disorder (MDD) or partly remitted MDD at baseline were prospectively followed up to 18 months, and their treatment contacts and the treatments provided were longitudinally followed. RESULTS: The median number of patients' visits to a general practitioner during the follow-up was five; of those due to depression two. Antidepressant treatment was offered to 82% of patients, but only 50% commenced treatment and adhered to it adequately. Psychosocial support was offered to 49%, but only 29% adhered to the highly variable interventions. Attributed reasons for poor adherence varied, including negative attitude, side effects, practical obstacles, or no perceived need. About one-quarter (23%) of patients were referred to specialized care at some time-point. LIMITATIONS: Moderate sample size. Data collected in 2002-2004. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of depressive patients in primary health care had been offered pharmacotherapy, psychotherapeutic support, or both. However, effectiveness of these efforts may have been limited by lack of systematic follow-up and poor adherence to both pharmacotherapy and psychosocial treatment.

Temperament, character, and suicide attempts in unipolar and bipolar mood disorders.

OBJECTIVE: Personality features may indicate risk for both mood disorders and suicidal acts. How dimensions of temperament and character predispose to suicide attempts remains unclear. METHOD: Patients (n = 597) from 3 prospective cohort studies (Vantaa Depression Study [VDS], Jorvi Bipolar Study [JoBS], and Vantaa Primary Care Depression Study [PC-VDS]) were interviewed at baseline, at 18 months, and, in VDS and PC-VDS, at 5 years (1997-2003). Personality was measured with the Temperament and Character Inventory-Revised (TCI-R), and follow-up time spent in major depressive episodes (MDEs) as well as lifetime (total) and prospectively ascertained suicide attempts during the follow-up were documented. RESULTS: Overall, 219 patients had 718 lifetime suicide attempts; 88 patients had 242 suicide attempts during the prospective follow-up. The numbers of both the total and prospective suicide attempts were associated with low self-directedness (ß = -0.266, P = .004, and ß = -0.294, P < .001, respectively) and high self-transcendence (ß = 0.287, P = .002, and ß = 0.233, P = .002, respectively). Total suicide attempts were linked to high novelty seeking (ß = 0.195, P = .05). Prospective, but not total, suicide attempts were associated with high harm avoidance (ß = 0.322, P < .001, and ß = 0.184, P = .062, respectively) and low reward dependence (ß = -0.274, P < .001, and ß = -0.134, P = .196, respectively), cooperativeness (ß = -0.181, P = .005, and ß = -0.096, P = .326, respectively), and novelty seeking (ß = -0.137, P = .047). No association remained significant when only prospective suicide attempts during MDEs were included. After adjustment was made for total time spent in MDEs, only high persistence predicted suicide attempts (ß = 0.190, P < .05). Formal mediation analyses of harm avoidance and self-directedness on prospectively ascertained suicide attempts indicated significant mediated effect through time at risk in MDEs, but no significant direct effect. CONCLUSIONS: Among mood disorder patients, suicide attempt risk is associated with temperament and character dimensions. However, their influence on predisposition to suicide attempts is likely to be mainly indirect, mediated by more time spent in depressive episodes.

Do characteristics of patients with major depressive disorder differ between primary and psychiatric care?

BACKGROUND: Despite the need for rational allocation of resources and cooperation between different treatment settings, clinical differences in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) between primary and psychiatric care remain obscure. We investigated these differences in representative patient populations from primary care versus secondary level psychiatric care in the city of Vantaa, Finland. METHOD: We compared MDD patients from primary care in the Vantaa Primary Care Depression Study (PC-VDS) (n=79) with psychiatric out-patients (n=223) and in-patients (n=46) in the Vantaa Depression Study (VDS). DSM-IV diagnoses were assigned by the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I disorders (SCID-I in PC-VDS) or Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry (SCAN in VDS), and SCID-II interviews. Comparable information was collected on depression severity, Axis I and II co-morbidity, suicidal behaviour, preceding clinical course, and attitudes towards and pathways to treatment. RESULTS: Prevalence of psychotic subtype and severity of depression were highest among in-patients, but otherwise few clinical differences between psychiatric and primary care patients were detected. Suicide attempts, alcohol dependence, and cluster A personality disorder were associated with treatment in psychiatric care, whereas cluster B personality disorder was associated with primary care treatment. Patients' choice of the initial point of contact for current depressive symptoms seemed to be independent of prior clinical history or attitude towards treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Severe, suicidal and psychotic depression cluster in psychiatric in-patient settings, as expected. However, MDD patients in primary care or psychiatric out-patient settings may not differ markedly in their clinical characteristics. This apparent blurring of boundaries between treatment settings calls for enhanced cooperation between settings, and clearer and more structured division of labour.