Improving outcomes for patients with depression by enhancing antidepressant therapy with non-pharmacological interventions: a systematic review of reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse literature reviews reporting outcomes of non-pharmacological interventions directed at improving the treatment of depression. METHODS: A review of English articles was performed in June 2009 using the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Web of Science, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library. Only review articles comparing traditional pharmacotherapy and interventions combining pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments were included. Extraction of articles and quality assessment of included reviews was performed independently by two authors using the AMSTAR score. RESULTS: The articles in the final data set included research on psychotherapeutic, multifaceted and single-component interventions. Single-component interventions have failed to demonstrate improved outcome for patients with depression. Collaborative care and additional psychotherapy have been shown to provide more benefits for patients than pharmacotherapy alone. Both approaches have a small effect on short-term treatment, and psychotherapy is the most effective for long-term prognosis in terms of preventing relapse. CONCLUSION: Conclusions regarding the effects of adherence-improving and multifaceted interventions are fairly certain. However, the findings about the impact of combined psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy on the outcomes of depression remain tentative due to the methodological limitations of available reviews.

Anticipated outcomes from introduction of 5-HTTLPR genotyping for depressed patients: an expert Delphi analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate experts' opinions regarding the extent to which the introduction of pretesting for polymorphism of serotonin transporter promoter region (5-HTTLPR) as a routine intervention in clinical practice would lead to better clinical outcomes for depression patients. METHODS: Using an internet survey system, authors of clinical studies addressing the topic of association of 5-HTTLPR genotyping with antidepressant response were contacted to participate in a Delphi study. RESULTS: Responses from 12 experts were used for the final analysis. According to the participants, the introduction of 5-HTTLPR genotyping will lead to 33.8, 48.2, 57.8, and 65.1% of patients reaching remission at 1, 2, 3, and 6 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: According to experts, application of 5-HTTLPR pretreatment genotyping might influence remission; however, the estimated remission rates with genotyping at first sight do not appear to be superior to existing practice, i.e. without genotyping. It is anticipated that a combination of 5-HTTLPR testing with other genomic variables, which have yet to be determined, and compliance measurements can improve clinical outcomes in the future. At present, the introduction of 5-HTTLPR genotyping is expected to be used only in special situations.

The Danish version of the questionnaire on pain communication: preliminary validation in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The modified version of the patients' Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (M-PICS) is a tool designed to assess cancer patients' perceptions of patient-health care provider pain communication process. The objective of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the shortened Danish version of the M-PICS (SDM-PICS). METHODS: The validated English version of the M-PICS was translated into Danish following the repeated back-translation procedure. Cancer patients were recruited for the study from specialized pain management facilities. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients responded to the SDM-PICS, Danish Barriers Questionnaire II, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Brief Pain Inventory Pain Severity Scale. A factor analysis of the SDM-PICS resulted in two factors: Factor one, patient information, consisted of four items assessing the extent to which the patient shared information with his/her health care provider, and Factor two, health care provider information, consisted of four items measuring the degree to which a health care provider was perceived as the one who shares information. Two separate items addressed the perceived level of information exchange between the patient and the health care provider. The SDM-PICS total had an internal consistency of 0.88. The SDM-PICS scores were positively related to pain relief and inversely related to the measures of cognitive pain management barriers, anxiety, and reported pain levels. CONCLUSION: The SDM-PICS seems to be a reliable and valid measure of perceived patient-health care provider communication in the context of cancer pain.