Assessing depression in primary care with the PHQ-9: can it be carried out over the telephone?

BACKGROUND: Telephone assessment of depression for research purposes is increasingly being used. The Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item depression module (PHQ-9) is a well-validated, brief, self-reported, diagnostic, and severity measure of depression designed for use in primary care (PC). To our knowledge, there are no available data regarding its validity when administered over the telephone. OBJECTIVE: The aims of the present study were to evaluate agreement between self-administered and telephone-administered PHQ-9, to investigate possible systematic bias, and to evaluate the internal consistency of the telephone-administered PHQ-9. METHODS: Three hundred and forty-six participants from two PC centers were assessed twice with the PHQ-9. Participants were divided into 4 groups according to administration procedure order and administration procedure of the PHQ-9: Self-administered/Telephone-administered; Telephone-administered/Self-administered; Telephone-administered/Telephone-administered; and Self-administered/Self-administered. The first 2 groups served for analyzing the procedural validity of telephone-administered PHQ-9. The last 2 allowed a test-retest reliability analysis of both self- and telephone-administered PHQ-9. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and weighted kappa (for each item) were calculated as measures of concordance. Additionally, Pearson's correlation coefficient, Student's t-test, and Cronbach's alpha were analyzed. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficient and weighted kappa between both administration procedures were excellent, revealing a strong concordance between telephone- and self-administered PHQ-9. A small and clinically nonsignificant tendency was observed toward lower scores for the telephone-administered PHQ-9. The internal consistency of the telephone-administered PHQ-9 was high and close to the self-administered one. CONCLUSIONS: Telephone and in-person assessments by means of the PHQ-9 yield similar results. Thus, telephone administration of the PHQ-9 seems to be a reliable procedure for assessing depression in PC.

Frequent attendance in primary care: comparison and implications of different definitions.

BACKGROUND: The diversity of definitions of frequent attendance in the literature hampers comparison of their precision, validity, and associated factors. AIM: To examine different definitions of frequent attendance in order to identify the sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with frequent attendance in primary care, according to each definition. DESIGN OF STUDY: One-phase cross-sectional study. SETTING: Seventy-seven primary care centres in Catalonia, Spain. METHOD: A total of 3815 primary care patients were interviewed between October 2005 and March 2006. Three definitions of frequent attendance were tested: (1) frequent attenders as the top 25% and the top 10% consulting patients; (2) frequent attenders as the top 25% and the top 10% consulting patients stratified by age and sex; and (3) frequent attenders as the top 25% and the top 10% consulting patients stratified by the presence of physical/mental conditions (patients with only mental disorders, with only chronic physical conditions, with comorbid conditions, and with no condition). Multilevel logistic regressions were used. RESULTS: The following factors were systematically related to frequent attender status: being on sick leave, being born outside of Spain, reporting mental health problems as the main reason for consulting, and having arthritis/rheumatism, or bronchitis. Major depression was related to frequent attendance in two of the three definitions. The factor 'GP' was related to frequent attendance when the top decile cut-off point was used. The models with a 10% cut-off point were more discriminative than those with a 25% cut-off point: the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for models with a 25% cut-off and a 10% cut-off ranged between 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.70 to 0.73) and 0.75 (95% CI = 0.74 to 0.77) and between 0.79 (95% CI = 0.78 to 0.81) and 0.85 (95% CI = 0.83 to 0.86), respectively. CONCLUSION: The way frequent attendance is defined is of crucial importance. It is recommended that a more discriminative definition of frequent attendance is used (the top 10%).

Fluoxetine and imipramine: are there differences in cost-utility for depression in primary care?

RATIONALE: Depressive disorders generate severe personal burden and high economic costs. Cost-utility analyses of the different therapeutical options are crucial to policy-makers and clinicians. Previous cost-utility studies, comparing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants, have used modelling techniques or have not included indirect costs in the economic analyses. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-utility of fluoxetine compared with imipramine for treating depressive disorders in primary care. METHODS: A 6-month randomized prospective naturalistic study comparing fluoxetine with imipramine was conducted in three primary care centres in Spain. One hundred and three patients requiring antidepressant treatment for a DSM-IV depressive disorder were included in the study. Patients were randomized either to fluoxetine (53 patients) or to imipramine (50 patients) treatment. Patients were treated with antidepressants according to their general practitioner's usual clinical practice. Outcome measures were the quality of life tariff of the European Quality of Life Questionnaire: EuroQoL-5D (five domains), direct costs, indirect costs and total costs. Subjects were evaluated at the beginning of treatment and after 1, 3 and 6 months. Incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) were obtained. To address uncertainty in the ICUR's sampling distribution, non-parametric bootstrapping was carried out. RESULTS: Taking into account adjusted total costs and incremental quality of life gained, imipramine dominated fluoxetine with 81.5% of the bootstrap replications in the dominance quadrant. CONCLUSION: Imipramine seems to be a better cost-utility antidepressant option for treating depressive disorders in primary care.