Stepped care for depression is easy to recommend, but harder to implement: results of an explorative study within primary care in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a common mental disorder with a high burden of disease which is mainly treated in primary care. It is unclear to what extent stepped care principles are applied in routine primary care. The first aim of this explorative study was to examine the gap between routine primary depression care and optimal care, as formulated in the depression guidelines. The second aim was to explore the facilitators and barriers that affect the provision of optimal care. METHODS: Optimal care was operationalised by indicators covering the entire continuum of depression care: from prevention to chronic depression. Routine care was investigated by interviewing general practitioners (GPs) individually and together with other mental health care providers about the depression care they delivered collaboratively. Qualitative analysis of transcripts was performed using thematic coding. Additionally, the GPs completed a self-report questionnaire. RESULTS: Six GPs and 22 other (mostly primary) mental health care providers participated. The GPs and their primary care colleagues embraced a general stepped care approach. They offered psycho-education and counselling to mildly depressed patients. When the treatment effects were not satisfactory or patients were more severely depressed, the GPs offered, or referred to, psychotherapy or pharmacotherapy. Patients with a complex and severe depressive disorder were directly referred to specialised mental health care. However, GPs relied on their clinical judgment and rarely used instruments to assess and monitor the severity of depressive symptoms. Structured, evidence based interventions such as self-management and e-health were rarely offered to patients with depressive symptoms. Specific psychological interventions for relapse prevention or for chronically depressed patients were not available. A wide range of influencing factors for the provision of optimal depression care were put forward. Close collaboration with other mental health care professionals was considered an important factor for improvement by nearly all GPs. CONCLUSIONS: The management of depression in primary care seems in line with stepped care principles, although it can be improved by applying more elements of a stepped care approach. Collaboration between GPs and mental health care providers in primary care and secondary care should be enhanced.

Barriers to implementing the clinical guideline on borderline personality disorder in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: This study determined the gap between actual care and optimal care (recommended in the clinical guideline) for patients with borderline personality disorder in the Netherlands. Factors that affected guideline implementation were identified. METHODS: Ten specialized mental health organizations participated in this cross-sectional study. The number and proportion of patients who received optimal diagnosis and treatment were calculated. Focus groups explored implementation barriers. RESULTS: Records of 422 patients with a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder were analyzed, and 315 records from six organizations contained the necessary data. Across the six organizations, most of these patients received this as an initial diagnosis (median 85%). However, only a minority received psychotherapy as a first-step treatment (median 23%). Capacity problems and organizational barriers were the main barriers to providing psychotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with borderline personality disorder did not receive the recommended first-step treatment (psychotherapy). Care pathways may help improve efficiency and quality of care.

Disseminating and implementing the results of back pain research in primary care.

STUDY DESIGN: Description of a workshop entitled "Implementation and Dissemination: Getting Research into Practice," that was held at the Fourth International Forum on Low Back Pain Research in Primary Care, in Israel in March 2000. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A gap exists between research endeavors and the dissemination and implementation of new research findings. OBJECTIVES: To describe the outcomes of a workshop on implementation and dissemination of research findings. METHODS: The Fourth International Forum on Low Back Pain Research in Primary Care aimed to encourage open discussion and consensus building among leading experts in the field, and to develop a research agenda. The workshop on implementation and dissemination focused on issues surrounding the gap between research results and actual practice. These issues were introduced by several presentations. The broad conclusions of the subsequent debate are summarized in this paper as a series of responses to key questions: 1) who should do the implementation?, 2) what should researchers do to help implementation?, 3) what are the key outcomes?, and 4) what are important ingredients for successful implementation? RESULTS: There was consensus about the importance of implementation of research findings, about the ineffectiveness of merely publishing or disseminating research findings, and about the need for prospective randomized trials evaluating the cost-effectiveness of different implementation strategies. The majority view is that the health provider professions and the professional bodies are the central organizations to implement guidelines, rather than the researchers themselves. Success in getting guidelines or research results into practice is dependent on involving local health service groups, experts, and opinion leaders (both local and national). Patient-centered outcomes and cost-effectiveness of guideline implementation were considered important. It was acknowledged that there are many potentially effective ingredients for successful implementation, but a clear indication of the contents of an effective implementation strategy is still lacking. CONCLUSIONS: The plenary and workshops focused on closing the gap between research results and actual practice. As long as we do not fully understand how best to influence and change physician behavior, the choice of implementation strategies should be based on the present knowledge of potentially effective interventions and should include considerations of available resources for, and potential barriers to, implementation.