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.

Depression follow-up monitoring with the PHQ-9: open cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Outcome monitoring of depression is recommended but lacks evidence of patient benefit in primary care. AIM: To test monitoring depression using the PHQ-9 questionnaire with patient feedback. DESIGN AND SETTING: Open cluster-randomised controlled trial in 141 group practices. METHOD: Adults with new depressive episodes were recruited through records searches and opportunistically. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: dementia, psychosis, substance misuse, suicide risk. The PHQ-9 questionnaire was to be administered soon after diagnosis, and 10-35 days later. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) score at 12 weeks. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: BDI-II at 26 weeks; Work and Social Adjustment Scale and EuroQol EQ-5D-5L quality of life at 12 and 26 weeks; antidepressant treatment, mental health service use, adverse events, and Medical Informant Satisfaction Scale over 26 weeks. RESULTS: 302 intervention arm patients were recruited and 227 controls. At 12 weeks 252 (83.4%) and 195 (85.9%) were followed-up respectively. Only 41% of intervention arm patients had a GP follow-up PHQ-9 recorded. There was no significant difference in BDI-II score at 12 weeks (mean difference -0.46; 95% CI -2.16,1.26), adjusted for baseline depression, baseline anxiety, sociodemographic factors, and clustering by practice). EQ-5D-5L quality of life scores were higher in the intervention arm at 26 weeks (adjusted mean difference 0.053; 95% CI 0.093,0.013). A clinically significant difference in depression at 26 weeks could not be ruled out. No significant differences were found in social functioning, adverse events, or satisfaction. In a per-protocol analysis, antidepressant use and mental health contacts were significantly greater in intervention arm patients with a recorded follow-up PHQ-9. CONCLUSIONS: No evidence was found of improved depression outcome at 12 weeks from monitoring. The findings of possible benefits over 26 weeks warrant replication, investigating possible mechanisms, preferably with automated delivery of monitoring and more instructive feedback.

Feasibility of linking universal child and family healthcare and financial counselling: findings from the Australian Healthier Wealthier Families (HWF) mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVES: 'Healthier Wealthier Families' (HWF) seeks to reduce financial hardship in the early years by embedding a referral pathway between Australia's universal child and family health (CFH) services and financial counselling. This pilot study investigated the feasibility and short-term impacts of HWF, adapted from a successful Scottish initiative. METHODS: Setting: CFH services in five sites across two states, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic. PARTICIPANTS: Caregivers of children aged 0-5 years experiencing financial hardship (study-designed screen). DESIGN: Mixed methods. With limited progress using a randomised trial (RCT) design in sites 1-3 (March 2020-November 2021), qualitative interviews with service providers identified implementation barriers including stigma, lack of knowledge of financial counselling, low financial literacy, research burden and pandemic disruption. This informed a simplified RCT protocol (site 4) and direct referral model (no randomisation, pre-post evaluation, site 5) (June 2021-May 2022). INTERVENTION: financial counselling; comparator: usual care (sites 1-4). Feasibility measures: proportions of caregivers screened, enrolled, followed up and who accessed financial counselling. Impact measures: finances (quantitative) and other (qualitative) to 6 months post-enrolment. RESULTS: 355/434 caregivers completed the screen (60%-100% across sites). In RCT sites (1-4), 79/365 (19%-41%) reported hardship but less than one-quarter enrolled. In site 5, n=66/69 (96%) caregivers reported hardship and 44/66 (67%) engaged with financial counselling; common issues were utility debts (73%), and obtaining entitlements (43%) or material aid/emergency relief (27%). Per family, financial counselling increased income from government entitlements by an average $A6504 annually plus $A784 from concessions, grants, brokerage and debt waivers. Caregivers described benefits (qualitative) including reduced stress, practical help, increased knowledge and empowerment. CONCLUSIONS: Financial hardship screening via CFH was acceptable to caregivers, direct referral was feasible, but individual randomisation was infeasible. Larger-scale implementation will require careful, staged adaptations where CFH populations and the intervention are well matched and low burden evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12620000154909.

Heterogeneity in Blood Biomarker Trajectories After Mild TBI Revealed by Unsupervised Learning.

Concussions, also known as mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), are a growing health challenge. Approximately four million concussions are diagnosed annually in the United States. Concussion is a heterogeneous disorder in causation, symptoms, and outcome making precision medicine approaches to this disorder important. Persistent disabling symptoms sometimes delay recovery in a difficult to predict subset of mTBI patients. Despite abundant data, clinicians need better tools to assess and predict recovery. Data-driven decision support holds promise for accurate clinical prediction tools for mTBI due to its ability to identify hidden correlations in complex datasets. We apply a Locality-Sensitive Hashing model enhanced by varied statistical methods to cluster blood biomarker level trajectories acquired over multiple time points. Additional features derived from demographics, injury context, neurocognitive assessment, and postural stability assessment are extracted using an autoencoder to augment the model. The data, obtained from FITBIR, consisted of 301 concussed subjects (athletes and cadets). Clustering identified 11 different biomarker trajectories. Two of the trajectories (rising GFAP and rising NF-L) were associated with a greater risk of loss of consciousness or post-traumatic amnesia at onset. The ability to cluster blood biomarker trajectories enhances the possibilities for precision medicine approaches to mTBI.

Exploratory Analysis of Concussion Recovery Trajectories using Multi-modal Assessments and Serum Biomarkers.

Clinicians need better tools to assess severity, prognosis, and recovery from mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI), which can cause long term impairment. To enable better mTBI outcome prediction, an initial step is to analyze the trajectory of recovery metrics over time. This study provides an assessment of recovery trajectories of mTBI while incorporating heterogeneity of individual responses. We analyze the trajectories over multiple discrete time points from baseline to 6 months post injury using a combination of neurocognitive and postural stability assessments and serum biomarkers. The data, obtained from FITBIR, consists of concussed subjects and a matched control group, to allow for comparison in prognostic assessment. Outcomes derived from this exploratory analysis will aid future studies in developing a mTBI recovery timeline model.Clinical relevance- This study further informs clinicians as to the recovery trajectory of clinical measures and biomarkers after mTBI to support return to play decisions. GFAP biomarker and measures related to balance, memory, orientation, and concentration were significantly different than controls early after mTBI.