A comparison of the original major depression inventory with a modified version: A Danish validation study.

BACKGROUND: The Major Depression Inventory (MDI) is a patient-reported outcome measure used by general practitioners to assist with diagnosing and evaluation of the severity of a patient's depression. However, recent studies have questioned the structural validity of the MDI. OBJECTIVES: We proposed a modified version (mMDI) of the MDI with fewer response categories and four rephrased items and aimed to compare the psychometric properties of the changes in a joint cohort of patients from general practice and mental health associations. METHODS: We used Rasch analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) to assess the validity and reliability of the two versions. Equipercentile linking was used to compute cut-off points for the mMDI. RESULTS: For both versions, local dependence was found between the three item pairs (loss of interest, lack of energy), (lack of self-confidence, feelings of guilt), and (concentration problems, feeling restless/slowed down). The mMDI displayed lower measurement error in the upper end of the scale and better item level fit for three of the four reformulated items compared to the MDI. For the MDI, 5.3% of the respondents gave improbable responses; the corresponding number was 3.4% for the mMDI. The mMDI displayed better fit to a one-factor model compared to the MDI. When comparing the correlation of the scales with the WHO-5 instrument, the corresponding AUROC estimates for the mMDI and MDI were found to be 0.93 (0.92; 0.96) and 0.91 (0.87; 0.94), respectively. The cut-off points for mild, moderate, and severe depression in the mMDI were found to be 17, 20, and 23, respectively. CONCLUSION: The proposed changes of the MDI are psychometrically sound upgrades of the original.

Psychiatric disorders and the cancer diagnostic process in general practice: a combined questionnaire and register study exploring the patients' experiences in Denmark.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with psychiatric disorders are at risk of experiencing suboptimal cancer diagnostics and treatment. This study investigates how this patient group perceives the cancer diagnostic process in general practice. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using questionnaire and register data. SETTING: General practice in Denmark. SUBJECTS: Patients diagnosed with cancer in late 2016 completed a questionnaire about their experiences with their general practitioner (GP) in the cancer diagnostic process (n = 3411). Information on pre-existing psychiatric disorders was obtained from register data on psychiatric hospital contacts and primary care treated psychiatric disorders through psychotropic medications. Logistic regression was used to analyse the association between psychiatric disorders and the patients' experiences. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' experiences, including cancer worry, feeling being taken seriously, and the perceived time between booking an appointment and the first GP consultation.[Box: see text]. RESULTS: A total of 13% of patients had an indication of a psychiatric disorder. This group more often perceived the time interval as too short between the first booking of a consultation and the first GP consultation. Patients with primary care treated psychiatric disorders were more likely to worry about cancer at the first presentation and to share this concern with their GP compared with patients without psychiatric disorders. We observed no statistically significant association between patients with psychiatric disorders and perceiving the waiting time to referral from general practice, being taken seriously, trust in the GP's abilities, and the patients' knowledge of the process following the GP referral. CONCLUSION: The patients' experiences with the cancer diagnostic process in general practice did not vary largely between patients with and without psychiatric disorders. Worrying about cancer may be a particular concern for patients with primary care treated psychiatric disorders.

It is unknown how patients with psychiatric disorders perceive the cancer diagnostic process in general practice.This study found an association between having a psychiatric disorder and more often perceiving the time interval as too short between the first booking of a consultation and the first GP consultation.An association was found between having a primary care treated psychiatric disorder and being worried about cancer and more often sharing these concerns with the GP.Experiences with the cancer diagnostic process in general practice did not differ between patients with a hospital treated psychiatric disorder and patients with no indication of psychiatric disorders.

The Effect of Coordinating the Outpatient Treatment across Medical Specialities for Patients With Multimorbidity.

Introduction: Patients with multimorbidity attend multiple outpatient clinics. We assessed the effects on hospital use of scheduling several outpatient appointments to same-day visits in a multidisciplinary outpatient pathway (MOP). Methods: This study used a quasi-experimental design. Eligible patients had multimorbidity, were aged ≥18 years and attended ≥2 outpatient clinics in five different specialties. Patients were identified through forthcoming appointments from August 2018 to March 2020 and divided into intervention group (alignment of appointments) and comparison group (no alignment). We used patient questionnaires and paired analyses to study care integration and treatment burden. Using negative binomial regression, we estimated healthcare utilisation as incidence rates ratios (IRRs) at one year before and one year after baseline for both groups and compared IRR ratios (IRRRs). Results: Intervention patients had a 19% reduction in hospital visits (IRRR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.70-0.96) and a 17% reduction in blood samples (IRRR: 0.83, 0.73-0.96) compared to comparison patients. No effects were found for care integration, treatment burden, outpatient contacts, terminated outpatient trajectories, hospital admissions, days of admission or GP contacts. Conclusion: The MOP seemed to reduce the number of hospital visits and blood samples. These results should be further investigated in studies exploring the coordination of outpatient care for multimorbidity. Research question: Can an intervention of coordinating outpatient appointments to same-day visits combined with a multidisciplinary conference influence the utilisation of healthcare services and the patient-assessed integration of healthcare services and treatment burden among patients with multimorbidity?

Contact with general practice in patients with suspected chronic coronary syndrome before and after CT angiography compared with the general population.

BACKGROUND: Most patients undergoing coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) to diagnose coronary artery disease (CAD) are referred from general practitioners (GP). The burden in contacts to GP in relation to investigation on suspected CAD is unknown. METHODS: All patients undergoing CCTA in Western Denmark from 2014-2022 were included. CCTA stenosis was defined as diameter stenosis of ≥ 50%. Patients with and without stenosis were matched, in each group, 1:5 to a reference population based on birth-year, gender and municipality using data from national registries. All GP visits were registered in up to five years preceding and one year after the CTA and stratified by gender and age. Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) were calculated in all groups. RESULTS: Of the 62 512 patients included, 12 886 had a stenosis while 49 626 did not. Patients in both groups had a substantially higher GP visit frequency compared to reference populations. In the year of coronary CTA median GP contacts in patients with stenosis was 11 [6-17] vs. 6 [2-11] in the reference population (P < 0.001), in patients without stenosis 10 [6-17] vs. 5 [2-11] (P < 0.001). These findings were consistent across age and gender. CCI was higher among both patients with and without stenosis compared to reference groups. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing CCTA to diagnose CAD, a substantially increased frequency of contacts to GP was observed in the five-year period prior to examination compared to the reference populations regardless of the CCTA findings. Obtaining the CCTA result did not seem to substantially affect the GP visit frequency.

Effectiveness of an adaptive, multifaceted intervention to enhance care for patients with complex multimorbidity in general practice: protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial (the MM600 trial).

INTRODUCTION: Patients with complex multimorbidity face a high treatment burden and frequently have low quality of life. General practice is the key organisational setting in terms of offering people with complex multimorbidity integrated, longitudinal, patient-centred care. This protocol describes a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of an adaptive, multifaceted intervention in general practice for patients with complex multimorbidity. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this study, 250 recruited general practices will be randomly assigned 1:1 to either the intervention or control group. The eligible population are adult patients with two or more chronic conditions, at least one contact with secondary care within the last year, taking at least five repeat prescription drugs, living independently, who experience significant problems with their life and health due to their multimorbidity. During 2023 and 2024, intervention practices are financially incentivised to provide an extended consultation based on a patient-centred framework to eligible patients. Control practices continue care as usual. The primary outcome is need-based quality of life. Outcomes will be evaluated using linear and logistic regression models, with clustering considered. The analysis will be performed as intention to treat. In addition, a process evaluation will be carried out and reported elsewhere. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial will be conducted in compliance with the protocol, the Helsinki Declaration in its most recent form and good clinical practice recommendations, as well as the regulation for informed consent. The study was submitted to the Danish Capital Region Ethical Committee (ref: H-22041229). As defined by Section 2 of the Danish Act on Research Ethics in Research Projects, this project does not constitute a health research project but is considered a quality improvement project that does not require formal ethical approval. All results from the study (whether positive, negative or inconclusive) will be published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05676541.