Barriers and facilitators for treatment-seeking in adults with a depressive or anxiety disorder in a Western-European health care setting: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Previous research on barriers and facilitators regarding treatment-seeking of adults with depressive and anxiety disorders has been primarily conducted in the Anglosphere. This study aims to gain insight into treatment-seeking behaviour of adults with depressive and anxiety disorders in a European healthcare system. METHODS: In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 participants, aged ≥18 years and diagnosed with an anxiety disorder and/or depressive disorder according to DSM-IV. Participants were purposively sampled from an outpatient department for mental health care in the Netherlands. The seven steps of framework analysis were used to identify relevant themes emerging from the interviews. RESULTS: Data analysis suggested an interplay between individual aspects, personal social system, healthcare system and sociocultural context influences. Amongst the most relevant themes were mental health illiteracy, stigma, a negative attitude toward professional help, the influence of significant others and general practitioner, and waiting time. Financial barriers were not of relevance. CONCLUSIONS: Even in a country with a well-developed mental health care system and in absence of financial barriers, there are many barriers to treatment-seeking in adult patients with depressive and anxiety disorders. National campaigns to increase awareness and decrease stigma in the general population, and to empower the social environment might reduce the treatment gap.

Effectiveness of collaborative care in reducing suicidal ideation: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

To assess whether CC is more effective at reducing suicidal ideation in people with depression compared with usual care, and whether study and patient factors moderate treatment effects. METHOD: We searched Medline, Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, CENTRAL from inception to March 2020 for Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) that compared the effectiveness of CC with usual care in depressed adults, and reported changes in suicidal ideation at 4 to 6 months post-randomisation. Mixed-effects models accounted for clustering of participants within trials and heterogeneity across trials. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020201747. RESULTS: We extracted data from 28 RCTs (11,165 patients) of 83 eligible studies. We observed a small significant clinical improvement of CC on suicidal ideation, compared with usual care (SMD, -0.11 [95%CI, -0.15 to -0.08]; I2, 0·47% [95%CI 0.04% to 4.90%]). CC interventions with a recognised psychological treatment were associated with small reductions in suicidal ideation (SMD, -0.15 [95%CI -0.19 to -0.11]). CC was more effective for reducing suicidal ideation among patients aged over 65 years (SMD, - 0.18 [95%CI -0.25 to -0.11]). CONCLUSION: Primary care based CC with an embedded psychological intervention is the most effective CC framework for reducing suicidal ideation and older patients may benefit the most.

The role of relapse prevention for depression in collaborative care: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Relapse (the re-emergence of depression symptoms before full recovery) is common in depression and relapse prevention strategies are not well researched in primary care settings. Collaborative care is effective for treating acute phase depression but little is known about the use of relapse prevention strategies in collaborative care. We undertook a systematic review to identify and characterise relapse prevention strategies in the context of collaborative care. METHODS: We searched for Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) of collaborative care for depression. In addition to published material, we obtained provider and patient manuals from authors to provide more detail on intervention content. We reported the extent to which collaborative care interventions addressed four relapse prevention components. RESULTS: 93 RCTs were identified. 31 included a formal relapse prevention plan; 42 had proactive monitoring and follow-up after the acute phase; 39 reported strategies for optimising sustained medication adherence; and 20 of the trials reported psychological or psycho-educational treatments persisting beyond the acute phase or focussing on long-term health/relapse prevention. 30 (32.3%) did not report relapse prevention approaches. LIMITATIONS: We did not receive trial materials for approximately half of the trials, which limited our ability to identify relevant features of intervention content. CONCLUSION: Relapse is a significant risk amongst people treated for depression and interventions are needed that specifically address and minimise this risk. Given the advantages of collaborative care as a delivery system for depression care, there is scope for more consistency and increased effort to implement and evaluate relapse prevention strategies.

Assessing Costs Using the Treatment Inventory Cost in Psychiatric Patients (TIC-P), TIC-P Mini and TIC-P Midi.

BACKGROUND: The Treatment Inventory Cost in Psychiatric patients (TIC-P) instrument is designed to measure societal costs in patients with psychiatric disorders and to be applied in economic evaluations. Efforts have been made to minimize respondents' burden by reducing the number of questions and meanwhile retaining the comprehensiveness of the instrument. Previously, a TIC-P Mini version and a TIC-P Midi version were developed and tested in a predominantly inpatient patient population. AIMS OF THE STUDY: The aims of this study are to examine the comprehensiveness of the abridged questionnaires in estimating the societal costs for patients with anxiety or depressive disorders and to assess the impact of productivity costs on the total costs. METHODS: The comprehensiveness of the abridged versions of the TIC-P was assessed in four populations: a group of primary care patients with anxiety disorders (n=175) and three groups of patients with major depressive disorders in various outpatient settings (n=140; n=125; and n=79). Comprehensiveness was measured using the proportion of total health care costs and productivity costs covered by the abridged versions compared to the full-length TIC-P. Costs were calculated according to the guidelines for costing studies using the Dutch costing manual. RESULTS: Our results showed that the TIC-P Mini covered 26%-64% of health care costs and the TIC-P Midi captured 54%-79% of health care costs. Health care costs in these populations were predominantly dispersed over primary care, outpatient hospital care, outpatient specialist care and inpatient hospital care. The TIC-P Midi and TIC-P Mini captured 22% and 0% of primary care costs respectively. In contrast, inpatient hospital care costs and outpatient specialist mental health care costs were almost fully included in the abridged versions. Costs due to lost productivity as measured by the full-length TIC-P were substantial, representing 38% to 92% of total costs. DISCUSSION: A reduction of the number of items resulted in a substantial loss in the ability to measure health care costs compared to the full-length TIC-P, because these outpatient populations consumed health care from a variety of health care providers. Two limitations of the study need to be stressed. Firstly, the number of patients in each of the four studies was relatively small. However, results were consistent over the four studies despite the small number of patients. Secondly, we did not take costs of medication into account. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICIES: In developing mental health policy, it is important to include considerations on cost-effectiveness. Increasing the evidence on instruments to measure costs from a societal perspective may support policymakers to adopt a broader perspective. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: The TIC-P Mini is not suitable to capture health care costs in outpatients with anxiety or depressive disorders. The comprehensiveness of TIC-P Midi compared to the full-length TIC-P varied. The TIC-P Midi should therefore be revised in order to better capture costs in all patient groups.

Long-Term and Short-Term Antidepressant Use in General Practice: Data from a Large Cohort in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressant use is highly prevalent. Research has mainly focused on efficacy during short periods of use for depression and anxiety. There is a relative paucity of data regarding the frequency of long-term use. METHODS: To determine the prevalence and possible increase of long-term use of antidepressants over recent years, we analyzed routine general practice care data in a large cohort of patients (n = 156,620) in and around Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Additionally, predictors of long-term use were studied. RESULTS: Prevalence of long-term use of antidepressants is substantial, and such use appears to be increasing: 30.3% of use was long-term over the period 1995-2005 compared to 43.7% for the period 2005-2015. Higher age, a registered diagnosis of anxiety or depression, and the use of SSRIs or SNRIs were associated with long-term use in multivariate analysis. In addition, specific antidepressants were differentially associated with long-term use. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term antidepressant use is substantial and appears to be on the rise. Awareness of this phenomenon should be increased, such use should be prevented when possible, and reasons for long-term use need to be examined.

Risk of relapse after antidepressant discontinuation in anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder: systematic review and meta-analysis of relapse prevention trials.

Objectives To examine the risk of relapse and time to relapse after discontinuation of antidepressants in patients with anxiety disorder who responded to antidepressants, and to explore whether relapse risk is related to type of anxiety disorder, type of antidepressant, mode of discontinuation, duration of treatment and follow-up, comorbidity, and allowance of psychotherapy.Design Systematic review and meta-analyses of relapse prevention trials.Data sources PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and clinical trial registers (from inception to July 2016).Study selection Eligible studies included patients with anxiety disorder who responded to antidepressants, randomised patients double blind to either continuing antidepressants or switching to placebo, and compared relapse rates or time to relapse.Data extraction Two independent raters selected studies and extracted data. Random effect models were used to estimate odds ratios for relapse, hazard ratios for time to relapse, and relapse prevalence per group. The effect of various categorical and continuous variables was explored with subgroup analyses and meta-regression analyses respectively. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool.Results The meta-analysis included 28 studies (n=5233) examining relapse with a maximum follow-up of one year. Across studies, risk of bias was considered low. Discontinuation increased the odds of relapse compared with continuing antidepressants (summary odds ratio 3.11, 95% confidence interval 2.48 to 3.89). Subgroup analyses and meta-regression analyses showed no statistical significance. Time to relapse (n=3002) was shorter when antidepressants were discontinued (summary hazard ratio 3.63, 2.58 to 5.10; n=11 studies). Summary relapse prevalences were 36.4% (30.8% to 42.1%; n=28 studies) for the placebo group and 16.4% (12.6% to 20.1%; n=28 studies) for the antidepressant group, but prevalence varied considerably across studies, most likely owing to differences in the length of follow-up. Dropout was higher in the placebo group (summary odds ratio 1.31, 1.06 to 1.63; n=27 studies).Conclusions Up to one year of follow-up, discontinuation of antidepressant treatment results in higher relapse rates among responders compared with treatment continuation. The lack of evidence after a one year period should not be interpreted as explicit advice to discontinue antidepressants after one year. Given the chronicity of anxiety disorders, treatment should be directed by long term considerations, including relapse prevalence, side effects, and patients' preferences.

Utility scores for different health states related to depression: individual participant data analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Depression is associated with considerable impairments in health-related quality-of-life. However, the relationship between different health states related to depression severity and utility scores is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether utility scores are different for various health states related to depression severity. METHODS: We gathered individual participant data from ten randomized controlled trials evaluating depression treatments. The UK EQ-5D and SF-6D tariffs were used to generate utility scores. We defined five health states that were proposed from American Psychiatric Association and National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines: remission, minor depression, mild depression, moderate depression, and severe depression. We performed multilevel linear regression analysis. RESULTS: We included 1629 participants in the analyses. The average EQ-5D utility scores for the five health states were 0.70 (95% CI 0.67-0.73) for remission, 0.62 (95% CI 0.58-0.65) for minor depression, 0.57 (95% CI 0.54-0.61) for mild depression, 0.52 (95%CI 0.49-0.56) for moderate depression, and 0.39 (95% CI 0.35-0.43) for severe depression. In comparison with the EQ-5D, the utility scores based on the SF-6D were similar for remission (EQ-5D = 0.70 vs. SF-6D = 0.69), but higher for severe depression (EQ-5D = 0.39 vs. SF-6D = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: We observed statistically significant differences in utility scores between depression health states. Individuals with less severe depressive symptoms had on average statistically significant higher utility scores than individuals suffering from more severe depressive symptomatology. In the present study, EQ-5D had a larger range of values as compared to SF-6D.

Association Between Chronic Physical Conditions and the Effectiveness of Collaborative Care for Depression: An Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Collaborative care is an intensive care model involving several health care professionals working together, typically a physician, a case manager, and a mental health professional. Meta-analyses of aggregate data have shown that collaborative care is particularly effective in people with depression and comorbid chronic physical conditions. However, only participant-level analyses can rigorously test whether the treatment effect is influenced by participant characteristics, such as chronic physical conditions. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the effectiveness of collaborative care for depression is moderated by the presence, type, and number of chronic physical conditions. DATA SOURCES: Data were obtained from MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL Complete, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and references from relevant systematic reviews. The search and collection of eligible studies was ongoing until May 22, 2015. STUDY SELECTION: This was an update to a previous meta-analysis. Two independent reviewers were involved in the study selection process. Randomized clinical trials that compared the effectiveness of collaborative care with usual care in adults with depression and reported measured changes in depression severity symptoms at 4 to 6 months after randomization were included in the analysis. Key search terms included depression, dysthymia, anxiety, panic, phobia, obsession, compulsion, posttraumatic, care management, case management, collaborative care, enhanced care, and managed care. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Individual participant data on baseline demographics and chronic physical conditions as well as baseline and follow-up depression severity symptoms were requested from authors of the eligible studies. One-step meta-analysis of individual participant data using appropriate mixed-effects models was performed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Continuous outcomes of depression severity symptoms measured using self-reported or observer-rated measures. RESULTS: Data sets from 31 randomized clinical trials including 36 independent comparisons (N = 10 962 participants) were analyzed. Individual participant data analyses found no significant interaction effects, indicating that the presence (interaction coefficient, 0.02 [95% CI, -0.10 to 0.13]), numbers (interaction coefficient, 0.01 [95% CI, -0.01 to 0.02]), and types of chronic physical conditions do not influence the treatment effect. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: There is evidence that collaborative care is effective for people with depression alone and also for people with depression and chronic physical conditions. Existing guidance that recommends limiting collaborative care to people with depression and physical comorbidities is not supported by this individual participant data meta-analysis.

Long-term antidepressant use: a qualitative study on perspectives of patients and GPs in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressant use is often prolonged in patients with anxiety and/or depressive disorder(s) compared with recommendations in treatment guidelines to discontinue after sustained remission. AIM: To unravel the motivations of patients and GPs causing long-term antidepressant use and to gain insight into possibilities to prevent unnecessary long-term use. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study using semi-structured, in-depth interviews with patients and GPs in the Netherlands. METHOD: Patients with anxiety and/or depressive disorder(s) (n = 38) and GPs (n = 26) were interviewed. Innovatively, the interplay between patients and their GPs was also investigated by means of patient-GP dyads (n = 20). RESULTS: The motives and barriers of patients and GPs to continue or discontinue antidepressants were related to the availability of supportive guidance during discontinuation, the personal circumstances of the patient, and considerations of the patient or GP. Importantly, dyads indicated a large variation in policies of general practices around long-term use and continuation or discontinuation of antidepressants. Dyads further indicated that patients and GPs seemed unaware of each other's (mismatching) expectations regarding responsibility to initiate discussing continuation or discontinuation. CONCLUSION: Although motives and barriers to antidepressant continuation or discontinuation were related to the same themes for patients and GPs, dyads indicated discrepancies between them. Discussion between patients and GPs about antidepressant use and continuation or discontinuation may help clarify mutual expectations and opinions. Agreements between a patient and their GP can be included in a patient-tailored treatment plan.

Cost-utility of collaborative care for major depressive disorder in primary care in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: Major depression is a great burden on society, as it is associated with high disability/costs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of Collaborative Care (CC) for major depressive disorder compared to Care As Usual (CAU) in a primary health care setting from a societal perspective. METHODS: A cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted, including 93 patients that were identified by screening (45-CC, 48-CAU). Another 57 patients were identified by the GP (56-CC, 1-CAU). The outcome measures were TiC-P, SF-HQL and EQ-5D, respectively measuring health care utilization, production losses and general health related quality of life at baseline three, six, nine and twelve months. A cost-utility analysis was performed for patients included by screening and a sensitivity analysis was done by also including patients identified by the GP. RESULTS: The average annual total costs was €1131 (95% C.I., €-3158 to €750) lower for CC compared to CAU. The average quality of life years (QALYs) gained was 0.02 (95% C.I., -0.004 to 0.04) higher for CC, so CC was dominant from a societal perspective. Taking a health care perspective, CC was less cost-effective due to higher costs, €1173 (95% C.I., €-216 to €2726), of CC compared to CAU which led to an ICER of 53,717 Euro/QALY. The sensitivity analysis showed dominance of CC. CONCLUSION: The cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective showed that CC was dominant to CAU. CC may be a promising treatment for depression in the primary care setting. Further research should explore the cost-effectiveness of long-term CC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register ISRCTN15266438.

A high physical symptom count reduces the effectiveness of treatment for depression, independently of chronic medical conditions.

AIM: To assess to what extent a high physical symptom count influences the effect of treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD), and whether or not actual comorbid medical conditions explain this relationship. METHOD: Secondary data-analysis on a cluster-randomized trial in primary care, comparing the effectiveness of collaborative care with care as usual (CAU). MDD was measured using the PHQ-9. The Physical Symptoms Questionnaire (PSQ) was filled out at baseline by 115 patients (77.2% of those who entered the trial). Multilevel logistic regression models were used to test whether a high physical symptom count predicted lack of response to treatment, adding interaction terms to test differential effects on collaborative care versus CAU. RESULTS: A high physical symptom count negatively influenced the effect of both collaborative care and care as usual (no interaction). Specifically, a high physical symptom count predicted lack of response in both conditions at 3 (odds ratio=6.8), 6 (OR=4.1), and 9 months follow-up (OR=6.4). This was not explained by chronic physical illness. CONCLUSION: In this RCT, patients with MDD accompanied by a high physical symptom count benefited less from treatment for MDD in primary care, regardless of the type of treatment (either collaborative care or CAU). This was not explained by the presence of comorbid medical conditions. Further research is needed to improve treatment for MDD accompanied by a high physical symptom count, although collaborative care for depression is still more effective than CAU for this group of patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch trial register ISRCTN15266438.

A target-driven collaborative care model for Major Depressive Disorder is effective in primary care in the Netherlands. A randomized clinical trial from the depression initiative.

BACKGROUND: Practice variation in the primary care treatment of depression may be considerable in the Netherlands, due to relatively small and unregulated practices. We adapted the collaborative care model for the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) to accommodate existing practice variation and tested whether this had added value over Care as Usual (CAU). METHODS: A cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare an adapted target driven collaborative care model with Care as Usual (CAU). Randomization was at the level of 18 (sub)urban primary care centers. The care manager and GP were supported by a web-based tracking and decision aid system that advised targeted treatment actions to achieve rapid response and if possible remission, and that warned the consultant psychiatrist if such treatment advice was not followed up. Eligible patients had a score of 10 or higher on the PHQ9, and met diagnostic criteria for major depression at the subsequent MINI Neuropsychiatric interview. A total of 93 patients were identified by screening. They received either collaborative care (CC) or CAU. Another 56 patients received collaborative care after identification by the GP. The outcome measures were response to treatment (50% or greater reduction of the PHQ9-total score from baseline) at three, six, nine and twelve months, and remission (a score of 0-4 on the PHQ9 at follow-up). RESULTS: Treatment response and remission in CAU were low. Collaborative care was more effective on achieving treatment response than CAU at three months for the total group of patients who received collaborative care [OR 5.2 ((1.41-16.09), NNT 2] and at nine months [OR 5.6 ((1.40-22.58)), NNT 3]. The effect was not statistically significant at 6 and 12 months. LIMITATIONS: A relatively high percentage of patients (36.5%) did not return one or more follow-up questionnaires. There was no evidence for selective non response. CONCLUSIONS: Our adapted target driven CC was considerably more effective than CAU for MDD in primary care in the Netherlands. The Numbers Needed To Treat (NNT) to achieve response in one additional patient were low (2-3), which suggest that introducing CC at a larger scale may be beneficial. The relatively large effects may be due to our focus on reducing practice variation through the introduction of easy to use web based tracking and decision aids. The findings are highly relevant for the application of the model in areas where practices tend to be small and for mixed healthcare systems such as in many countries in Europe. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch trial register ISRCTN15266438 (http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=820).

Negative association of concomitant physical symptoms with the course of major depressive disorder: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The prognosis of depression greatly varies among patients, and the physical symptoms that often accompany depression may predict treatment resistance and a worse outcome. If so, this may have important clinical implications. The aim of this systematic review was to explore the association of concomitant physical symptoms with the outcome of major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: Systematic review: Medline, Psychinfo, and the Cochrane Library were searched for prospective, cross-sectional, and retrospective studies, and also for open-label trials and randomized controlled trials. The risk of bias assessment and data extraction were performed in duplicate. A qualitative best-evidence synthesis was performed, based on the number of studies reporting on the association between physical symptoms and the course of MDD, the consistency of the results, and the methodological quality. The findings were reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Although the design, outcome measures, and data presentation varied too much to make statistical pooling possible, the best evidence synthesis resulted in strong, consistent evidence for a negative association between physical symptoms and the course of MDD. CONCLUSION: This systematic review shows a negative association of concomitant physical symptoms with the course of MDD. The effect might be considerable, but the number of studies addressing this topic is small and there was a wide variation in the study designs and outcome measures. More research is needed.

The Depression Initiative. Description of a collaborative care model for depression and of the factors influencing its implementation in the primary care setting in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: In the Depression Initiative, a promising collaborative care model for depression that was developed in the US was adapted for implementation in the Netherlands. AIM: Description of a collaborative care model for major depressive disorder (MDD) and of the factors influencing its implementation in the primary care setting in the Netherlands. DATA SOURCES: Data collected during the preparation phase of the CC:DIP trial of the Depression Initiative, literature, policy documents, information sheets from professional associations. RESULTS: Factors facilitating the implementation of the collaborative care model are continuous supervision of the care managers by the consultant psychiatrist and the trainers, a supportive web-based tracking system and the new reimbursement system that allows for introduction of a mental health care-practice nurse (MHC-PN) in the general practices and coverage of the treatment costs. Impeding factors might be the relatively high percentage of solo-primary care practices, the small percentage of professionals that are located in the same building, unfamiliarity with the concept of collaboration as required for collaborative care, the reimbursement system that demands regular negotiations between each health care provider and the insurance companies and the reluctance general practitioners might feel to expand their responsibility for their depressed patients. CONCLUSION: Implementation of the collaborative care model in the Netherlands requires extensive training and supervision on micro level, facilitation of reimbursement on meso- and macro level and structural effort to change the treatment culture for chronic mental disorders in the primary care setting.

Cost-effectiveness of collaborative care including PST and an antidepressant treatment algorithm for the treatment of major depressive disorder in primary care; a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Depressive disorder is currently one of the most burdensome disorders worldwide. Evidence-based treatments for depressive disorder are already available, but these are used insufficiently, and with less positive results than possible. Earlier research in the USA has shown good results in the treatment of depressive disorder based on a collaborative care approach with Problem Solving Treatment and an antidepressant treatment algorithm, and research in the UK has also shown good results with Problem Solving Treatment. These treatment strategies may also work very well in the Netherlands too, even though health care systems differ between countries. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a two-armed randomised clinical trial, with randomization on patient-level. The aim of the trial is to evaluate the treatment of depressive disorder in primary care in the Netherlands by means of an adapted collaborative care framework, including contracting and adherence-improving strategies, combined with Problem Solving Treatment and antidepressant medication according to a treatment algorithm. Forty general practices will be randomised to either the intervention group or the control group. Included will be patients who are diagnosed with moderate to severe depression, based on DSM-IV criteria, and stratified according to comorbid chronic physical illness. Patients in the intervention group will receive treatment based on the collaborative care approach, and patients in the control group will receive care as usual. Baseline measurements and follow up measures (3, 6, 9 and 12 months) are assessed using questionnaires and an interview. The primary outcome measure is severity of depressive symptoms, according to the PHQ9. Secondary outcome measures are remission as measured with the PHQ9 and the IDS-SR, and cost-effectiveness measured with the TiC-P, the EQ-5D and the SF-36. DISCUSSION: In this study, an American model to enhance care for patients with a depressive disorder, the collaborative care model, will be evaluated for effectiveness in the primary care setting. If effective across the Atlantic and across different health care systems, it is also likely to be an effective strategy to implement in the treatment of major depressive disorder in the Netherlands.