Support and services for perinatal low mood and depression: A qualitative study exploring women's and healthcare professionals' experiences.

This study aimed to explore women's experiences of support and care received from maternity healthcare professionals for perinatal low mood or depression, and healthcare professionals' experiences of providing support and care for women experiencing perinatal low mood or depression. In this qualitative study, face-to-face individual semistructured interviews and focus groups were conducted with 15 women and 19 healthcare professionals living or working in Yorkshire and the Humber, England in 2019. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data. The following themes were identified: (1) lack of standardization in identification and support for perinatal low mood and depression; (2) unclear and nonstandardized pathways for perinatal low mood and depression; and (3) enablers and barriers of receiving support and care for perinatal low mood and depression. Providing training opportunities for healthcare professionals, especially midwives, may be helpful for filling the gray area for women who do not need a referral to mental health services but require support from healthcare professionals. Improving the variety of psychological therapies for the treatment of perinatal depression may also be helpful to meet women's expectations of treatments.

Pharmacy-based management for depression in adults.

BACKGROUND: It is common for peoples not to take antidepressant medication as prescribed, with around 50% of people likely to prematurely discontinue taking their medication after six months. Community pharmacists may be well placed to have a role in antidepressant management because of their unique pharmacotherapeutic knowledge and ease of access for people. Pharmacists are in an ideal position to offer proactive interventions to people with depression or depressive symptoms. However, the effectiveness and acceptability of existing pharmacist-based interventions is not yet well understood. The degree to which a pharmacy-based management approach might be beneficial, acceptable to people, and effective as part of the overall management for those with depression is, to date, unclear. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) will help answer these questions and add important knowledge to the currently sparse evidence base. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of pharmacy-based management interventions compared with active control (e.g. patient information materials or any other active intervention delivered by someone other than the pharmacist or the pharmacy team), waiting list, or treatment as usual (e.g. standard pharmacist advice or antidepressant education, signposting to support available in primary care services, brief medication counselling, and/or (self-)monitoring of medication adherence offered by a healthcare professional outside the pharmacy team) at improving depression outcomes in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMD-CTR) to June 2016; the Cochrane Library (Issue 11, 2018); and Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to December 2018. We searched theses and dissertation databases and international trial registers for unpublished/ongoing trials. We applied no restrictions on date, language, or publication status to the searches.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all RCTs and cluster-RCTs where a pharmacy-based intervention was compared with treatment as usual, waiting list, or an alternative intervention in the management of depression in adults over 16 years of age. Eligible studies had to report at least one of the following outcomes at any time point: depression symptom change, acceptability of the intervention, diagnosis of depression, non-adherence to medication, frequency of primary care appointments, quality of life, social functioning, or adverse events.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently, and in duplicate, conducted all stages of study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment (including GRADE). We discussed disagreements within the team until we reached consensus. Where data did not allow meta-analyses, we synthesised results narratively.  MAIN RESULTS: Twelve studies (2215 participants) met the inclusion criteria and compared pharmacy-based management with treatment as usual. Two studies (291 participants) also included an active control (both used patient information leaflets providing information about the prescribed antidepressant). Neither of these studies reported depression symptom change. A narrative synthesis of results on acceptability of the intervention was inconclusive, with one study reporting better acceptability of pharmacy-based management and the other better acceptability of the active control. One study reported that participants in the pharmacy-based management group had better medication adherence than the control participants. One study reported adverse events with no difference between groups. The studies reported no other outcomes. Meta-analyses comparing pharmacy-based management with treatment as usual showed no evidence of a difference in the effect of the intervention on depression symptom change (dichotomous data; improvement in symptoms yes/no: risk ratio (RR), 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.05; 4 RCTs, 475 participants; moderate-quality evidence; continuous data: standard mean difference (SMD) -0.04, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.10; 5 RCTs, 718 participants; high-certainty evidence), or acceptability of the intervention (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.45; 12 RCTs, 2072 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The risk of non-adherence was reduced in participants receiving pharmacy-based management (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.87; 6 RCTs, 911 participants; high-certainty evidence). We were unable to meta-analyse data on diagnosis of depression, frequency of primary care appointments, quality of life, or social functioning. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of a difference between pharmacy-based management for depression in adults compared with treatment as usual in facilitating depression symptom change. Based on numbers of participants leaving the trials early, there may be no difference in acceptability between pharmacy-based management and controls. However, there was uncertainty due to the low-certainty evidence.

Cost and Outcome of BehaviouRal Activation (COBRA): a randomised controlled trial of behavioural activation versus cognitive-behavioural therapy for depression.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a common, debilitating and costly disorder. The best-evidenced psychological therapy - cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) - is complex and costly. A simpler therapy, behavioural activation (BA), may be an effective alternative. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BA compared with CBT for depressed adults at 12 and 18 months' follow-up, and to investigate the processes of treatments. DESIGN: Randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial stratified by depression severity, antidepressant use and recruitment site, with embedded process evaluation; and randomisation by remote computer-generated allocation. SETTING: Three community mental health services in England. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥ 18 years with major depressive disorder (MDD) recruited from primary care and psychological therapy services. INTERVENTIONS: BA delivered by NHS junior mental health workers (MHWs); CBT by NHS psychological therapists. OUTCOMES: Primary: depression severity (as measured via the Patient Health Questionnaire-9; PHQ-9) at 12 months. Secondary: MDD status; number of depression-free days; anxiety (as measured via the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7); health-related quality of life (as measured via the Short Form questionnaire-36 items) at 6, 12 and 18 months; and PHQ-9 at 6 and 18 months, all collected by assessors blinded to treatment allocation. Non-inferiority margin was 1.9 PHQ-9 points. We undertook intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analyses. We explored cost-effectiveness by collecting direct treatment and other health- and social-care costs and calculating quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version, at 18 months. RESULTS: We recruited 440 participants (BA, n = 221; CBT, n = 219); 175 (79%) BA and 189 (86%) CBT participants provided ITT data and 135 (61%) BA and 151 (69%) CBT participants provided PP data. At 12 months we found that BA was non-inferior to CBT {ITT: CBT 8.4 PHQ-9 points [standard deviation (SD) 7.5 PHQ-9 points], BA 8.4 PHQ-9 points (SD 7.0 PHQ-9 points), mean difference 0.1 PHQ-9 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.3 to 1.5 PHQ-9 points, p = 0.89; PP: CBT 7.9 PHQ-9 points (SD 7.3 PHQ-9 points), BA 7.8 PHQ-9 points (SD 6.5 PHQ-9 points), mean difference 0.0 PHQ-9 points, 95% CI -1.5 to 1.6 PHQ-9 points, p = 0.99}. We found no differences in secondary outcomes. We found a significant difference in mean intervention costs (BA, £975; CBT, £1235; p < 0.001), but no differences in non-intervention (hospital, community health, social care and medication costs) or total (non-intervention plus intervention) costs. Costs were lower and QALY outcomes better in the BA group, generating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -£6865. The probability of BA being cost-effective compared with CBT was almost 80% at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's preferred willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000-30,000 per QALY. There were no trial-related adverse events. LIMITATIONS: In this pragmatic trial many depressed participants in both groups were also taking antidepressant medication, although most had been doing so for a considerable time before entering the trial. Around one-third of participants chose not to complete a PP dose of treatment, a finding common in both psychotherapy trials and routine practice. CONCLUSIONS: We found that BA is as effective as CBT, more cost-effective and can be delivered by MHWs with no professional training in psychological therapies. FUTURE WORK: Settings and countries with a paucity of professionally qualified psychological therapists, might choose to investigate the delivery of effective psychological therapy for depression without the need to develop an extensive and costly professional infrastructure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27473954. 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. 21, No. 46. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Faith-adapted psychological therapies for depression and anxiety: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Incorporating faith (religious or spiritual) perspectives into psychological treatments has attracted significant interest in recent years. However, previous suggestion that good psychiatric care should include spiritual components has provoked controversy. To try to address ongoing uncertainty in this field we present a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of faith-based adaptations of bona fide psychological therapies for depression or anxiety. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials were performed. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 2274 citations of which 16 studies were eligible for inclusion. All studies used cognitive or cognitive behavioural models as the basis for their faith-adapted treatment (F-CBT). We identified statistically significant benefits of using F-CBT. However, quality assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias tool revealed methodological limitations that reduce the apparent strength of these findings. LIMITATIONS: Whilst the effect sizes identified here were statistically significant, there were relatively a few relevant RCTs available, and those included were typically small and susceptible to significant biases. Biases associated with researcher or therapist allegiance were identified as a particular concern. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some suggestion that faith-adapted CBT may out-perform both standard CBT and control conditions (waiting list or "treatment as usual"), the effect sizes identified in this meta-analysis must be considered in the light of the substantial methodological limitations that affect the primary research data. Before firm recommendations about the value of faith-adapted treatments can be made, further large-scale, rigorously performed trials are required.

CASPER plus (CollAborative care in Screen-Positive EldeRs with major depressive disorder): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Depression accounts for the greatest disease burden of all mental health disorders, contributes heavily to healthcare costs, and by 2020 is set to become the second largest cause of global disability. Although 10% to 16% of people aged 65 years and over are likely to experience depressive symptoms, the condition is under-diagnosed and often inadequately treated in primary care. Later-life depression is associated with chronic illness and disability, cognitive impairment and social isolation. With a progressively ageing population it becomes increasingly important to refine strategies to identity and manage depression in older people. Currently, management may be limited to the prescription of antidepressants where there may be poor concordance; older people may lack awareness of psychosocial interventions and general practitioners may neglect to offer this treatment option. METHODS/DESIGN: CASPER Plus is a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of a collaborative care intervention for individuals aged 65 years and over experiencing moderate to severe depression. Selected practices in the North of England identify potentially eligible patients and invite them to participate in the study. A diagnostic interview is carried out and participants with major depressive disorder are randomised to either collaborative care or usual care. The recruitment target is 450 participants. The intervention, behavioural activation and medication management in a collaborative care framework, has been adapted to meet the complex needs of older people. It is delivered over eight to 10 weekly sessions by a case manager liaising with general practitioners. The trial aims to evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of collaborative care in addition to usual GP care versus usual GP care alone. The primary clinical outcome, depression severity, will be measured with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) at baseline, 4, 12 and 18 months. Cost effectiveness analysis will assess health-related quality of life using the SF-12 and EQ-5D and will examine cost-consequences of collaborative care. A qualitative process evaluation will be undertaken to explore acceptability, gauge the extent to which the intervention is implemented and to explore sustainability beyond the clinical trial. DISCUSSION: Results will add to existing evidence and a positive outcome may lead to the commissioning of this model of service in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN45842879 (24 July 2012).

Cost and outcome of behavioural activation versus cognitive behaviour therapy for depression (COBRA): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment for depression. However, CBT is a complex therapy that requires highly trained and qualified practitioners, and its scalability is therefore limited by the costs of training and employing sufficient therapists to meet demand. Behavioural activation (BA) is a psychological treatment for depression that may be an effective alternative to CBT and, because it is simpler, might also be delivered by less highly trained and specialised mental health workers. METHODS/DESIGN: COBRA is a two-arm, non-inferiority, patient-level randomised controlled trial, including clinical, economic, and process evaluations comparing CBT delivered by highly trained professional therapists to BA delivered by junior professional or para-professional mental health workers to establish whether the clinical effectiveness of BA is non-inferior to CBT and if BA is cost effective compared to CBT. Four hundred and forty patients with major depressive disorder will be recruited through screening in primary care. We will analyse for non-inferiority in per-protocol and intention-to-treat populations. Our primary outcome will be severity of depression symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9) at 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes will be clinically significant change and severity of depression at 18 months, and anxiety (General Anxiety Disorder-7 questionnaire) and health-related quality of life (Short-Form Health Survey-36) at 12 and 18 months. Our economic evaluation will take the United Kingdom National Health Service/Personal Social Services perspective to include costs of the interventions, health and social care services used, plus productivity losses. Cost-effectiveness will explored in terms of quality-adjusted life years using the EuroQol-5D measure of health-related quality of life. DISCUSSION: The clinical and economic outcomes of this trial will provide the evidence to help policy makers, clinicians and guideline developers decide on the merits of including BA as a first-line treatment of depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27473954.