Improving the precision of depression diagnosis in general practice: a cluster-randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Methods to enhance the accuracy of the depression diagnosis continues to be of relevance to clinicians. The primary aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic precision of two different diagnostic strategies using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) as a reference standard. A secondary aim was to evaluate accordance between depression severity found via MINI and mean Major Depression Inventory (MDI) sum-scores presented at referral. METHODS: This study was a two-armed, cluster-randomized superiority trial embedded in the Collabri trials investigating collaborative care in Danish general practices. GPs performing case-finding were instructed always to use MDI when suspecting depression. GPs performing usual clinical assessment were instructed to detect depression as they would normally do. According to guidelines, GPs would use MDI if they had a clinical suspicion, and patients responded positively to two or three core symptoms of depression. We compared the positive predictive value (PPV) in the two groups. RESULTS: Fifty-one GP clusters were randomized. In total, 244 participants were recruited in the case-finding group from a total of 19 GP clusters, and 256 participants were recruited in the usual clinical assessment group from a total of 19 GP clusters. The PPV of the GP diagnosis, when based on case-finding, was 0.83 (95% CI 0.78-0.88) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.89-0.96) when based on usual clinical assessment. The mean MDI sum-scores for each depression severity group indicated higher scores than suggested cut-offs. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, systematic use of MDI on clinical suspicion of depression did not improve the diagnostic precision compared with the usual clinical assessment of depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was retrospectively registered on 07/02/2016 at ClinicalTrials.gov. No. NCT02678845 .

Collaborative care for depression and anxiety disorders: results and lessons learned from the Danish cluster-randomized Collabri trials.

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses suggest that collaborative care (CC) improves symptoms of depression and anxiety. In CC, a care manager collaborates with a general practitioner (GP) to provide evidence-based care. Most CC research is from the US, focusing on depression. As research results may not transfer to other settings, we developed and tested a Danish CC-model (the Collabri-model) for depression, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and social anxiety disorder in general practice. METHODS: Four cluster-randomized superiority trials evaluated the effects of CC. The overall aim was to explore if CC significantly improved depression and anxiety symptoms compared to treatment-as-usual at 6-months' follow-up. The Collabri-model was founded on a multi-professional collaboration between a team of mental-health specialists (psychiatrists and care managers) and GPs. In collaboration with GPs, care managers provided treatment according to a structured plan, including regular reassessments and follow-up. Treatment modalities (cognitive behavioral therapy, psychoeducation, and medication) were offered based on stepped care algorithms. Face-to-face meetings between GPs and care managers took place regularly, and a psychiatrist provided supervision. The control group received treatment-as-usual. Primary outcomes were symptoms of depression (BDI-II) and anxiety (BAI) at 6-months' follow-up. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated based on 6-months' follow-up. RESULTS: Despite various attempts to improve inclusion rates, the necessary number of participants was not recruited. Seven hundred thirty-one participants were included: 325 in the depression trial and 406 in the anxiety trials. The Collabri-model was implemented, demonstrating good fidelity to core model elements. In favor of CC, we found a statistically significant difference between depression scores at 6-months' follow-up in the depression trial. The difference was not significant at 15-months' follow-up. The anxiety trials were pooled for data analysis due to inadequate sample sizes. At 6- and 15-months' follow-up, there was a difference in anxiety symptoms favoring CC. These differences were not statistically significant. The ICER was 58,280 Euro per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: At 6 months, a significant difference between groups was found in the depression trial, but not in the pooled anxiety trial. However, these results should be cautiously interpreted as there is a risk of selection bias and lacking statistical power. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02678624 and NCT02678845 . Retrospectively registered on 7 February 2016.

Illness management and recovery: one-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial in Danish community mental health centers: long-term effects on clinical and personal recovery.

BACKGROUND: Illness Management and Recovery (IMR) is a curriculum-based rehabilitation program for people with severe mental illness with the short-term aim of improving illness self-management and the long-term aim of helping people achieve clinical and personal recovery. METHOD: Participants with schizophrenia or bipolar disorders were recruited from three community mental health centers in the Capital Region of Denmark and randomized to receive group-based IMR and treatment as usual or only the usual intervention. All outcomes were assessed at baseline, postintervention, and the one-year follow-up. Long-term outcomes were categorized according to clinical recovery (i.e., symptoms, global functioning, and hospitalization) and personal recovery (i.e., hope and personal agency). Generalized linear mixed model regression analyses were used in the intent-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: A total of 198 participants were included. No significant differences were found between the IMR and control groups in the Global Assessment of Functioning one year after the intervention, nor were there significant differences in symptoms, number of hospital admissions, emergency room visits, or outpatient treatment. CONCLUSION: The present IMR trial showed no significant effect on clinical and personal recovery at the one-year follow-up. Together with the results of other IMR studies, the present study indicates that the effect of IMR on symptom severity is unclear, which raises questions regarding the impact of IMR on functioning. Additionally, IMR did not affect personal recovery. Although more research is needed, the results indicate that the development of other interventions should be considered to help people with severe mental illness achieve a better level of functioning and personal recovery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT01361698 ).

Illness management and recovery: Clinical outcomes of a randomized clinical trial in community mental health centers.

OBJECTIVE: Illness Management and Recovery (IMR) is a psychosocial intervention with a recovery-oriented approach. The program has been evaluated in different settings; however evidence for the effects of IMR is still deficient. The aim of this trial was to investigate the benefits and harms of the IMR program compared with treatment as usual in Danish patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. METHOD: The trial was designed as a randomized, assessor-blinded, multi-center, clinical trial investigating the IMR program compared with usual treatment. 198 people diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder participated. The primary outcome was the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF-F) at the end of intervention and the secondary and explorative outcomes included severity of symptoms and service utilization. RESULTS: IMR had no significant effect on functioning, symptoms, substance use or service utilization. CONCLUSION: This randomized trial contributes to the evidence base of IMR by providing a methodological solid base for its conclusions; however the trial has some important limitations. More research is needed to get a firm answer on the effectiveness of the IMR.

Participants' and staffs' evaluation of the Illness Management and Recovery program: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Psychoeducational interventions for people with severe mental illness are developed to enable them to manage their illness effectively to improve prognosis and recovery. AIM: The aim was to investigate the benefits and harms of the Illness Management and Recovery (IMR) program among people with severe mental illness in Denmark. IMR builds among other approaches on a psychoeducational approach. METHODS: A randomized, multi-center, clinical trial of the IMR program compared with treatment as usual among 198 participants with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder investigating outcomes related to illness self-management assessed by the IMR scale, recovery, hope and participants' satisfaction at the end of the 9 months intervention period. RESULTS: No statistical differences were seen between the two groups regarding illness self-management, hope, recovery, or satisfaction with treatment. CONCLUSIONS: IMR appears not to be better than treatment as usual in any of the outcomes. Further studies with a longer follow-up period, better assessments of recovery and a systematic review of the existing trials are needed to assess if the program is effective.

Collaborative care for panic disorder, generalised anxiety disorder and social phobia in general practice: study protocol for three cluster-randomised, superiority trials.

BACKGROUND: People with anxiety disorders represent a significant part of a general practitioner's patient population. However, there are organisational obstacles for optimal treatment, such as a lack of coordination of illness management and limited access to evidence-based treatment such as cognitive behavioral therapy. A limited number of studies suggest that collaborative care has a positive effect on symptoms for people with anxiety disorders. However, most studies are carried out in the USA and none have reported results for social phobia or generalised anxiety disorder separately. Thus, there is a need for studies carried out in different settings for specific anxiety populations. A Danish model for collaborative care (the Collabri model) has been developed for people diagnosed with depression or anxiety disorders. The model is evaluated through four trials, of which three will be outlined in this protocol and focus on panic disorder, generalised anxiety disorder and social phobia. The aim is to investigate whether treatment according to the Collabri model has a better effect than usual treatment on symptoms when provided to people with anxiety disorders. METHODS: Three cluster-randomised, clinical superiority trials are set up to investigate treatment according to the Collabri model for collaborative care compared to treatment-as-usual for 364 patients diagnosed with panic disorder, generalised anxiety disorder and social phobia, respectively (total n = 1092). Patients are recruited from general practices located in the Capital Region of Denmark. For all trials, the primary outcome is anxiety symptoms (Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI)) 6 months after baseline. Secondary outcomes include BAI after 15 months, depression symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory) after 6 months, level of psychosocial functioning (Global Assessment of Functioning) and general psychological symptoms (Symptom Checklist-90-R) after 6 and 15 months. DISCUSSION: Results will add to the limited pool of information about collaborative care for patients with anxiety disorders. To our knowledge, these will be the first carried out in a Danish context and the first to report results for generalised anxiety and social phobia separately. If the trials show positive results, they could contribute to the improvement of future treatment of anxiety disorders. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02678624 . Retrospectively registered 7 February 2016; last updated 15 August 2016.

Collaborative care for depression in general practice: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a common illness with great human costs and a significant burden on the public economy. Previous studies have indicated that collaborative care (CC) has a positive effect on symptoms when provided to people with depression, but CC has not yet been applied in a Danish context. We therefore developed a model for CC (the Collabri model) to treat people with depression in general practice in Denmark. Since systematic identification of patients is an "active ingredient" in CC and some literature suggests case finding as the best alternative to standard detection, the two detection methods are examined as part of the study. The aim is to investigate if treatment according to the Collabri model has an effect on depression symptoms when provided to people with depression in general practice in Denmark, and to examine if case finding is a better method to detect depression in general practice than standard detection. METHODS/DESIGN: The trial is a cluster-randomised, clinical superiority trial investigating the effect of treatment according to the Collabri model for CC, compared to treatment as usual for 480 participants diagnosed with depression in general practice in the Capital Region of Denmark. The primary outcome is depression symptoms (Beck's Depression Inventory (BDI-II)) after 6 months. Secondary outcomes include depression symptoms (BDI-II) after 15 months, anxiety symptoms (Beck's Anxiety Inventory (BAI)), level of functioning (Global Assessment of Function (GAF)) and psychological stress (Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R)). In addition, case finding (with the recommended screening tool Major Depression Inventory (MDI)) and standard detection of depression is examined in a cluster-randomized controlled design. Here, the primary outcome is the positive predictive value of referral diagnosis. DISCUSSION: If the Collabri model is shown to be superior to treatment as usual, the study will contribute with important knowledge on how to improve treatment of depression in general practice, with major benefit to patients and society. If case finding is shown to be superior to standard detection, it will be recommended as the detection method in future treatment according to the Collabri model. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT02678845 . Retrospectively registered on 7 February 2016.

[Shared decision making in psychiatry]. / Fælles beslutningstagning i psykiatrien.

In the paradigm of recovery-oriented care in mental health the central decision model is shared decision making (SDM). In the article we describe the model of SDM and the reason why it has been identified as important in mental health care. We also review the central literature of SDM in mental health and some of the decision aids just beginning to be developed to enhance SDM, thereby pointing to the need of documenting the effect of using decision aids and to further research on the effect of SDM on the recovery process of people in mental health care.

[Shared decision making in psychiatry].

In the paradigm of recovery-oriented care in mental health the central decision model is shared decision making (SDM). In the article we describe the model of SDM and the reason why it has been identified as important in mental health care. We also review the central literature of SDM in mental health and some of the decision aids just beginning to be developed to enhance SDM, thereby pointing to the need of documenting the effect of using decision aids and to further research on the effect of SDM on the recovery process of people in mental health care.

Illness management and recovery (IMR) in Danish community mental health centres.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are severe mental illnesses that can have a significant disabling impact on the lives of people. Psychosocial interventions that stress hope and recovery as a part of a multi-dimensional approach are possibly indicated to support people with severe mental illness in facilitating recovery. Illness Management and Recovery (IMR) is a curriculum-based psychosocial intervention designed as structured program with a recovery-oriented approach. The aim of IMR is to rehabilitate people with severe mental illnesses by helping them acquire knowledge and skills in managing their illness and achieve personal recovery goals. Previous randomised clinical trials indicate that IMR can be implemented with a good effect and a high fidelity though further trials are crucial to demonstrate the potential effectiveness of IMR. METHODS/DESIGN: The trial design is a randomised, assessor-blinded, multi-centre, clinical trial of the IMR program compared with treatment as usual for 200 participants diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder under the care of two community mental health centres in the Capital Region of Denmark. The primary outcome is level of functioning at the end of treatment. The secondary outcomes are disease symptoms; use of alcohol/drugs; individual meaning of recovery; hope; hospital admissions and out-patient psychiatric treatment at the end of treatment and the abovementioned and level of functioning at follow-up 21 months after baseline. DISCUSSION: If the results of this trial show IMR to be effective these positive results will strengthen the evidence of IMR as an effective comprehensive psychosocial intervention with a recovery-oriented approach for people with severe mental illness. This will have significant implications for the treatment and recovery of people with severe mental illness.