Use of a personalised depression intervention in primary care to prevent anxiety: a secondary study of a cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: In the predictD-intervention, GPs used a personalised biopsychosocial programme to prevent depression. This reduced the incidence of major depression by 21.0%, although the results were not statistically significant. AIM: To determine whether the predictD-intervention is effective at preventing anxiety in primary care patients without depression or anxiety. DESIGN AND SETTING: Secondary study of a cluster randomised trial with practices randomly assigned to either the predictD-intervention or usual care. This study was conducted in seven Spanish cities from October 2010 to July 2012. METHOD: In each city, 10 practices and two GPs per practice, as well as four to six patients every recruiting day, were randomly selected until there were 26-27 eligible patients for each GP. The endpoint was cumulative incidence of anxiety as measured by the PRIME-MD screening tool over 18 months. RESULTS: A total of 3326 patients without depression and 140 GPs from 70 practices consented and were eligible to participate; 328 of these patients were removed because they had an anxiety syndrome at baseline. Of the 2998 valid patients, 2597 (86.6%) were evaluated at the end of the study. At 18 months, 10.4% (95% CI = 8.7% to 12.1%) of the patients in the predictD-intervention group developed anxiety compared with 13.1% (95% CI = 11.4% to 14.8%) in the usual-care group (absolute difference = -2.7% [95% CI = -5.1% to -0.3%]; P = 0.029). CONCLUSION: A personalised intervention delivered by GPs for the prevention of depression provided a modest but statistically significant reduction in the incidence of anxiety.

[Common mental disorders in primary care: diagnostic and therapeutic difficulties, and new challenges in prediction and prevention. SESPAS Report 2020]. / Enfermedades mentales comunes en atención primaria: dificultades diagnósticas y terapéuticas, y nuevos retos en predicción y prevención. Informe SESPAS 2020.

In primary health care only chronic pain surpass depression and anxiety in loss of quality-adjusted life years. More than 70% of people suffering from common mental disorders consulted their GPs for this reason. However, 'the declining halves rule' is a reality: less than 50% of primary care attendees with common mental disorders were correctly diagnosed, of these less than 50% received adequate treatment (pharmacological or psychological) and of these less than 50% patients were adherent. Collaborative models of common mental disorders care in primary health care have demonstrated their effectiveness through clinical trials; however, its implementation in a more general and real context is difficult and its effectiveness remains unclear. Risk algorithms have been developed and validated in primary health care to predict the onset and prognosis of common mental disorders; which are useful for their treatment and prevention. There is evidence that psychological and psychoeducational interventions (and possibly those of physical exercise) are effective for the primary prevention of common mental disorders, even in primary health care; although their effects are small or moderate. These interventions have a high potential to be scalable in schools, workplace and primary health care; in addition, when they are administered through information and communication technologies (e.g. by App), in self-guided or minimally guided programs, they have demonstrated their effectiveness for the treatment and prevention of common mental disorders. They are also very accessible, have low cost and contribute to the massive implementation of these interventions in different settings.

Family physicians' views on participating in prevention of major depression. The predictD-EVAL qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The predictD intervention, a multicomponent intervention delivered by family physicians (FPs), reduced the incidence of major depression by 21% versus the control group and was cost-effective. A qualitative methodology was proposed to identify the mechanisms of action of these complex interventions. PURPOSE: To seek the opinions of these FPs on the potential successful components of the predictD intervention for the primary prevention of depression in primary care and to identify areas for improvement. METHOD: Qualitative study with FPs who delivered the predictD intervention at 35 urban primary care centres in seven Spanish cities. Face-to-face semi-structured interviews adopting a phenomenological approach. The data was triangulated by three investigators using thematic analysis and respondent validation was carried out. RESULTS: Sixty-seven FPs were interviewed and they indicated strategies used to perform the predictD intervention, including specific communication skills such as empathy and the activation of patient resources. They perceived barriers such as lack of time and facilitators such as prior acquaintance with patients. FPs recognized the positive consequences of the intervention for FPs, patients and the doctor-patient relationship. They also identified strategies for future versions and implementations of the predictD intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The FPs who carried out the predictD intervention identified factors potentially associated with successful prevention using this program and others that could be improved. Their opinions about the predictD intervention will enable development of a more effective and acceptable version and its implementation in different primary health care settings.

A personalized intervention to prevent depression in primary care: cost-effectiveness study nested into a clustered randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Depression is viewed as a major and increasing public health issue, as it causes high distress in the people experiencing it and considerable financial costs to society. Efforts are being made to reduce this burden by preventing depression. A critical component of this strategy is the ability to assess the individual level and profile of risk for the development of major depression. This paper presents the cost-effectiveness of a personalized intervention based on the risk of developing depression carried out in primary care, compared with usual care. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analyses are nested within a multicentre, clustered, randomized controlled trial of a personalized intervention to prevent depression. The study was carried out in 70 primary care centres from seven cities in Spain. Two general practitioners (GPs) were randomly sampled from those prepared to participate in each centre (i.e. 140 GPs), and 3326 participants consented and were eligible to participate. The intervention included the GP communicating to the patient his/her individual risk for depression and personal risk factors and the construction by both GPs and patients of a psychosocial programme tailored to prevent depression. In addition, GPs carried out measures to activate and empower the patients, who also received a leaflet about preventing depression. GPs were trained in a 10- to 15-h workshop. Costs were measured from a societal and National Health care perspective. Qualityadjustedlife years were assessed using the EuroQOL five dimensions questionnaire. The time horizon was 18 months. RESULTS: With a willingness-to-pay threshold of €10,000 (£8568) the probability of cost-effectiveness oscillated from 83% (societal perspective) to 89% (health perspective). If the threshold was increased to €30,000 (£25,704), the probability of being considered cost-effective was 94% (societal perspective) and 96%, respectively (health perspective). The sensitivity analysis confirmed these results. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with usual care, an intervention based on personal predictors of risk of depression implemented by GPs is a cost-effective strategy to prevent depression. This type of personalized intervention in primary care should be further developed and evaluated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01151982. Registered on June 29, 2010.

Effectiveness of Psychological and/or Educational Interventions in the Prevention of Anxiety: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Meta-regression.

Importance: To our knowledge, no systematic reviews or meta-analyses have been conducted to assess the effectiveness of preventive psychological and/or educational interventions for anxiety in varied populations. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of preventive psychological and/or educational interventions for anxiety in varied population types. Data Sources: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted based on literature searches of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EMBASE, OpenGrey, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other sources from inception to March 7, 2017. Study Selection: A search was performed of randomized clinical trials assessing the effectiveness of preventive psychological and/or educational interventions for anxiety in varying populations free of anxiety at baseline as measured using validated instruments. There was no setting or language restriction. Eligibility criteria assessment was conducted by 2 of us. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias (Cochrane Collaboration's tool) were performed by 2 of us. Pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated using random-effect models. Heterogeneity was explored by random-effects meta-regression. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incidence of new cases of anxiety disorders or reduction of anxiety symptoms as measured by validated instruments. Results: Of the 3273 abstracts reviewed, 131 were selected for full-text review, and 29 met the inclusion criteria, representing 10 430 patients from 11 countries on 4 continents. Meta-analysis calculations were based on 36 comparisons. The pooled SMD was -0.31 (95% CI, -0.40 to -0.21; P < .001) and heterogeneity was substantial (I2 = 61.1%; 95% CI, 44% to 73%). There was evidence of publication bias, but the effect size barely varied after adjustment (SMD, -0.27; 95% CI, -0.37 to -0.17; P < .001). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of effect size results. A meta-regression including 5 variables explained 99.6% of between-study variability, revealing an association between higher SMD, waiting list (comparator) (ß = -0.33 [95% CI, -0.55 to -0.11]; P = .005) and a lower sample size (lg) (ß = 0.15 [95% CI, 0.06 to 0.23]; P = .001). No association was observed with risk of bias, family physician providing intervention, and use of standardized interviews as outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Psychological and/or educational interventions had a small but statistically significant benefit for anxiety prevention in all populations evaluated. Although more studies with larger samples and active comparators are needed, these findings suggest that anxiety prevention programs should be further developed and implemented.

Effectiveness of Psychological and Educational Interventions to Prevent Depression in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Although evidence exists for the efficacy of psychosocial interventions to prevent the onset of depression, little is known about its prevention in primary care. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of psychological and educational interventions to prevent depression in primary care. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effect of psychological and educational interventions to prevent depression in nondepressed primary care attendees. We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, OpenGrey Repository, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other sources up to May 2016. At least 2 reviewers independently evaluated the eligibility criteria, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We calculated standardized mean differences (SMD) using random-effects models. RESULTS: We selected 14 studies (7,365 patients) that met the inclusion criteria, 13 of which were valid to perform a meta-analysis. Most of the interventions had a cognitive-behavioral orientation, and in only 4 RCTs were the intervention clinicians primary care staff. The pooled SMD was -0.163 (95%CI, -0.256 to -0.070; P = .001). The risk of bias and the heterogeneity (I2 = 20.6%) were low, and there was no evidence of publication bias. Meta-regression detected no association between SMD and follow-up times or SMD and risk of bias. Subgroup analysis suggested greater effectiveness when the RCTs used care as usual as the comparator compared with those using placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological and educational interventions to prevent depression had a modest though statistically significant preventive effect in primary care. Further RCTs using placebo or active comparators are needed.

Intervention to Prevent Major Depression in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Trial.

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.

Patients' opinions about knowing their risk for depression and what to do about it. The predictD-qualitative study.

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.

Preventing the onset of major depression based on the level and profile of risk of primary care attendees: protocol of a cluster randomised trial (the predictD-CCRT study).

BACKGROUND: The 'predictD algorithm' provides an estimate of the level and profile of risk of the onset of major depression in primary care attendees. This gives us the opportunity to develop interventions to prevent depression in a personalized way. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of a new intervention, personalized and implemented by family physicians (FPs), to prevent the onset of episodes of major depression. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT), with cluster assignment by health center and two parallel arms. Two interventions will be applied by FPs, usual care versus the new intervention predictD-CCRT. The latter has four components: a training workshop for FPs; communicating the level and profile of risk of depression; building up a tailored bio-psycho-family-social intervention by FPs to prevent depression; offering a booklet to prevent depression; and activating and empowering patients. We will recruit a systematic random sample of 3286 non-depressed adult patients (1643 in each trial arm), nested in 140 FPs and 70 health centers from 7 Spanish cities. All patients will be evaluated at baseline, 6, 12 and 18 months. The level and profile of risk of depression will be communicated to patients by the FPs in the intervention practices at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Our primary outcome will be the cumulative incidence of major depression (measured by CIDI each 6 months) over 18 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes will be health-related quality of life (SF-12 and EuroQol), and measurements of cost-effectiveness and cost-utility. The inferences will be made at patient level. We shall undertake an intention-to-treat effectiveness analysis and will handle missing data using multiple imputations. We will perform multi-level logistic regressions and will adjust for the probability of the onset of major depression at 12 months measured at baseline as well as for unbalanced variables if appropriate. The economic evaluation will be approached from two perspectives, societal and health system. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this will be the first RCT of universal primary prevention for depression in adults and the first to test a personalized intervention implemented by FPs. We discuss possible biases as well as other limitations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01151982.