Patient-reported outcome measures for monitoring primary care patients with depression: the PROMDEP cluster RCT and economic evaluation.

Background: Guidelines on the management of depression recommend that practitioners use patient-reported outcome measures for the follow-up monitoring of symptoms, but there is a lack of evidence of benefit in terms of patient outcomes. Objective: To test using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 questionnaire as a patient-reported outcome measure for monitoring depression, training practitioners in interpreting scores and giving patients feedback. Design: Parallel-group, cluster-randomised superiority trial; 1 : 1 allocation to intervention and control. Setting: UK primary care (141 group general practices in England and Wales). Inclusion criteria: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with a new episode of depressive disorder or symptoms, recruited mainly through medical record searches, plus opportunistically in consultations. Exclusions: Current depression treatment, dementia, psychosis, substance misuse and risk of suicide. Intervention: Administration of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 questionnaire with patient feedback soon after diagnosis, and at follow-up 10-35 days later, compared with usual care. Primary outcome: Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, symptom scores at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes: Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, scores at 26 weeks; antidepressant drug treatment and mental health service contacts; social functioning (Work and Social Adjustment Scale) and quality of life (EuroQol 5-Dimension, five-level) at 12 and 26 weeks; service use over 26 weeks to calculate NHS costs; patient satisfaction at 26 weeks (Medical Informant Satisfaction Scale); and adverse events. Sample size: The original target sample of 676 patients recruited was reduced to 554 due to finding a significant correlation between baseline and follow-up values for the primary outcome measure. Randomisation: Remote computerised randomisation with minimisation by recruiting university, small/large practice and urban/rural location. Blinding: Blinding of participants was impossible given the open cluster design, but self-report outcome measures prevented observer bias. Analysis was blind to allocation. Analysis: Linear mixed models were used, adjusted for baseline depression, baseline anxiety, sociodemographic factors, and clustering including practice as random effect. Quality of life and costs were analysed over 26 weeks. Qualitative interviews: Practitioner and patient interviews were conducted to reflect on trial processes and use of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 using the Normalization Process Theory framework. Results: Three hundred and two patients were recruited in intervention arm practices and 227 patients were recruited in control practices. Primary outcome data were collected for 252 (83.4%) and 195 (85.9%), respectively. No significant difference in Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, score was found at 12 weeks (adjusted mean difference -0.46, 95% confidence interval -2.16 to 1.26). Nor were significant differences found in Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd Edition, score at 26 weeks, social functioning, patient satisfaction or adverse events. EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, quality-of-life scores favoured the intervention arm at 26 weeks (adjusted mean difference 0.053, 95% confidence interval 0.013 to 0.093). However, quality-adjusted life-years over 26 weeks were not significantly greater (difference 0.0013, 95% confidence interval -0.0157 to 0.0182). Costs were lower in the intervention arm but, again, not significantly (-£163, 95% confidence interval -£349 to £28). Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses, therefore, suggested that the intervention was dominant over usual care, but with considerable uncertainty around the point estimates. Patients valued using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 to compare scores at baseline and follow-up, whereas practitioner views were more mixed, with some considering it too time-consuming. Conclusions: We found no evidence of improved depression management or outcome at 12 weeks from using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, but patients' quality of life was better at 26 weeks, perhaps because feedback of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores increased their awareness of improvement in their depression and reduced their anxiety. Further research in primary care should evaluate patient-reported outcome measures including anxiety symptoms, administered remotely, with algorithms delivering clear recommendations for changes in treatment. Study registration: This study is registered as IRAS250225 and ISRCTN17299295. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/42/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 17. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Depression is common, can be disabling and costs the nation billions. The National Health Service recommends general practitioners who treat people with depression use symptom questionnaires to help assess whether those people are getting better over time. A symptom questionnaire is one type of patient-reported outcome measure. Patient-reported outcome measures appear to benefit people having therapy and mental health care, but this approach has not been tested thoroughly in general practice. Most people with depression are treated in general practice, so it is important to test patient-reported outcome measures there, too. In this study, we tested whether using a patient-reported outcome measure helps people with depression get better more quickly. The study was a 'randomised controlled trial' in general practices, split into two groups. In one group, people with depression completed the Patient Health Questionnaire, or 'PHQ-9', patient-reported outcome measure, which measures nine symptoms of depression. In the other group, people with depression were treated as usual without the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. We fed the results of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 back to the people with depression themselves to show them how severe their depression was and asked them to discuss the results with the practitioners looking after them. We found no differences between the patient-reported outcome measure group and the control group in their level of depression; their work or social life; their satisfaction with care from their practice; or their use of medicines, therapy or specialist care for depression. However, we did find that their quality of life was improved at 6 months, and the costs of the National Health Service services they used were lower. Using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 can improve patients' quality of life, perhaps by making them more aware of improvement in their depression symptoms, and less anxious as a result. Future research should test using a patient-reported outcome measure that includes anxiety and processing the answers through a computer to give practitioners clearer advice on possible changes to treatment for depression.

Impact of the government's restrictions and guidance in relation to "social distancing" on the lives of ethnic minority populations: A mixed methods study.

Background and Aims: The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic have not been equal, with a disproportionate impact among ethnic minority communities. Structural inequalities in social determinants of health such as housing and employment have contributed to COVID-19's impact on deprived communities, including many ethnic minority communities. To compare (1) how the UK government's "social distancing" restrictions and guidance were perceived and implemented by ethnic minority populations compared to white populations, (2) the impact of restrictions and guidance upon these groups. Methods: An explanatory sequential mixed methods study incorporated a quantitative survey and qualitative semi-structured interviews to explore individual perceptions and experiences of COVID-19 and the national restrictions. Survey participants (n = 1587) were recruited from North West England; 60 (4%) participants were from ethnic minority communities. Forty-nine interviews were conducted; 19 (39%) participants were from ethnic minority communities. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic approach. Data collection was between April and August 2020. Results: Significant differences in demographics and household overcrowding were observed between white vs ethnic minority survey respondents, who were also significantly less confident in their knowledge of COVID-19, less likely to be high-risk drinkers, and marginally more likely to have experienced job loss and/or reduced household income. There were no group differences in wellbeing, perceptions, or nonfinancial impacts. Two inter-related themes included: (1) government guidance, incorporating people's knowledge and understanding of the guidance and their confusion/frustration over messaging; (2) the impacts of restrictions on keyworkers, home-schooling, working from home and changes in lifestyle/wellbeing. Conclusions: Further research is needed on the long-term impacts of COVID-19 on ethnic minority communities. If policy responses to COVID-19 are to benefit ethnic minority communities, there is a need for future studies to consider fundamental societal issues, such as the role of housing and economic disadvantage.

The Australian Child Maltreatment Study (ACMS), a national survey of the prevalence of child maltreatment and its correlates: methodology.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the aims, design, methodology, and respondent sample representativeness of the Australian Child Maltreatment Study (ACMS). DESIGN, SETTING: Cross-sectional, retrospective survey; computer-assisted mobile telephone interviewing using random digit dialling (computer-generated), Australia, 9 April - 11 October 2021. PARTICIPANTS: People aged 16 years or more. The target sample size was 8500 respondents: 3500 people aged 16-24 years and 1000 respondents each from five further age groups (25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65 years or more). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes: Emotional abuse, neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, exposure to domestic violence during childhood, assessed with the Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire-R2 Adapted Version (Australian Child Maltreatment Study). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: selected mental disorder diagnoses (Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview, MINI), selected physical health conditions, health risk behaviours, health service use. RESULTS: The demographic characteristics of the ACMS sample were similar to those of the Australian population in 2016 with respect to gender, Indigenous status, region and remoteness category of residence, and marital status, but larger proportions of participants were born in Australia, lived in areas of higher socio-economic status, had tertiary qualifications, and had income greater than $1250 per week. Population weights were derived to adjust for these differences. Associations between the number of calls required to recruit participants and maltreatment rates and health outcomes were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The ACMS provides the first reliable estimates of the prevalence of each type of child maltreatment in Australia. These estimates, and those of associated mental health and health risk behaviours reported in this supplement can inform policy and practice initiatives for reducing the prevalence of child maltreatment and its consequences. Our benchmark study also provides baseline data for repeated waves of the ACMS that will assess the effectiveness of these initiatives.

Antidepressant medication to prevent depression relapse in primary care: the ANTLER RCT.

BACKGROUND: There has been a steady increase in the number of primary care patients receiving long-term maintenance antidepressant treatment, despite limited evidence of a benefit of this treatment beyond 8 months. OBJECTIVE: The ANTidepressants to prevent reLapse in dEpRession (ANTLER) trial investigated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antidepressant medication in preventing relapse in UK primary care. DESIGN: This was a Phase IV, double-blind, pragmatic, multisite, individually randomised parallel-group controlled trial, with follow-up at 6, 12, 26, 39 and 52 weeks. Participants were randomised using minimisation on centre, type of antidepressant and baseline depressive symptom score above or below the median using Clinical Interview Schedule - Revised (two categories). Statisticians were blind to allocation for the outcome analyses. SETTING: General practices in London, Bristol, Southampton and York. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals aged 18-74 years who had experienced at least two episodes of depression and had been taking antidepressants for ≥ 9 months but felt well enough to consider stopping their medication. Those who met an International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, diagnosis of depression or with other psychiatric conditions were excluded. INTERVENTION: At baseline, participants were taking citalopram 20 mg, sertraline 100 mg, fluoxetine 20 mg or mirtazapine 30 mg. They were randomised to either remain on their current medication or discontinue medication after a tapering period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the time, in weeks, to the beginning of the first depressive episode after randomisation. This was measured by a retrospective Clinical Interview Schedule - Revised that assessed the onset of a depressive episode in the previous 12 weeks, and was conducted at 12, 26, 39 and 52 weeks. The depression-related resource use was collected over 12 months from medical records and patient-completed questionnaires. Quality-adjusted life-years were calculated using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version. RESULTS: Between 9 March 2017 and 1 March 2019, we randomised 238 participants to antidepressant continuation (the maintenance group) and 240 participants to antidepressant discontinuation (the discontinuation group). The time to relapse of depression was shorter in the discontinuation group, with a hazard ratio of 2.06 (95% confidence interval 1.56 to 2.70; p < 0.0001). By 52 weeks, relapse was experienced by 39% of those who continued antidepressants and 56% of those who discontinued antidepressants. The secondary analysis revealed that people who discontinued experienced more withdrawal symptoms than those who remained on medication, with the largest difference at 12 weeks. In the discontinuation group, 37% (95% confidence interval 28% to 45%) of participants remained on their randomised medication until the end of the trial. In total, 39% (95% confidence interval 32% to 45%) of participants in the discontinuation group returned to their original antidepressant compared with 20% (95% confidence interval 15% to 25%) of participants in maintenance group. The health economic evaluation demonstrated that participants randomised to discontinuation had worse utility scores at 3 months (-0.037, 95% confidence interval -0.059 to -0.015) and fewer quality-adjusted life-years over 12 months (-0.019, 95% confidence interval -0.035 to -0.003) than those randomised to continuation. The discontinuation pathway, besides giving worse outcomes, also cost more [extra £2.71 per patient over 12 months (95% confidence interval -£36.10 to £37.07)] than the continuation pathway, although the cost difference was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who discontinue long-term maintenance antidepressants in primary care are at increased risk of relapse and withdrawal symptoms. However, a substantial proportion of patients can discontinue antidepressants without relapse. Our findings will give patients and clinicians an estimate of the likely benefits and harms of stopping long-term maintenance antidepressants and improve shared decision-making. The participants may not have been representative of all people on long-term maintenance treatment and we could study only a restricted range of antidepressants and doses. Identifying patients who will not relapse if they discontinued antidepressants would be clinically important. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15969819 and EudraCT 2015-004210-26. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 69. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Antidepressants are used to treat depression when someone is unwell, but are also used as maintenance treatment to prevent the reoccurrence of depression. There has been a large increase in the use of long-term maintenance antidepressant treatment, but the evidence for the benefits of maintenance beyond 8 months is very poor. The ANTidepressants to prevent reLapse in dEpRession (ANTLER) trial was a randomised controlled trial that examined the effectiveness of long-term maintenance treatment with antidepressants. The participants were well enough to consider stopping antidepressant medication, were recruited from primary care and had taken antidepressants for ≥ 9 months. In total, 238 participants were randomised to continue taking antidepressants and 240 were randomised to receive a visually identical tablet that contained no active ingredients after a period when the antidepressants were gradually reduced. Neither the participants nor those interviewing them knew which group they had been placed in, and they were followed up for 1 year. Participants who discontinued antidepressants were more likely to experience relapse than those who continued antidepressants. By 52 weeks, 39% of those who continued antidepressants had experienced a relapse, compared with 56% in the group that discontinued antidepressants. In other words, over a 52-week period, one in every six patients who stopped antidepressants would experience a relapse that may not have occurred if they had remained on their antidepressants. Patients in the discontinuation group reported more symptoms of anxiety and depression and experienced more withdrawal symptoms than those in the maintenance group, mostly in the first 3­4 months after stopping the antidepressants. Participants in the discontinuation group also reported lower quality of life than those in the maintenance group but both groups used similar amounts of health-care and social care resources over the 12-month period. About one-third of participants who were allocated to the discontinuation group in the ANTLER trial decided to restart their antidepressants. However, another one-third of participants in that group remained on trial medication for 12 months and managed without antidepressants. Long-term maintenance treatment with antidepressants is effective in reducing the rate of relapses. For those who are considering stopping their antidepressant, our findings will provide estimates of the likely benefits and harms, to improve shared decision-making and support the regular review of long-term antidepressant prescription.