Co-producing a board game to learn and engage about dementia inequalities: First impacts on knowledge in the general population.

BACKGROUND: Receiving and accessing care after a diagnosis of dementia, both for the person and their carer, are fraught with inequalities. The aim of this public engagement activity was to co-produce a board game about dementia inequalities to facilitate learning, dialogue and educate about different barriers, and facilitators, to diagnosis and care and to test the game's impact on dementia knowledge with the general public. METHODS: Two virtual and two face-to-face workshops with people with dementia, unpaid carers, health and social care professionals and Third Sector representatives were held between October 2022 and June 2023. Virtual workshops involved discussions of inequalities and how a board game may feature inequalities. The first face-to-face workshop was split into the same activities, aided by outcomes from workshops 1 and 2. Workshop 4 attendees tested the prototype. The impact of the game on knowledge about dementia and inequalities was tested at a game play workshop in October 2023. RESULTS: Forty stakeholders attended four workshops. Workshops provided step-by-step thoughts on how the game could be designed or modified. The final game, prototype tested in workshop 4, consists of a one-sided, two-half board depicting the prediagnosis process (left half) and postdiagnosis process (right half). Fifty-two members of the general public participated in the game play workshop, which led to significant improvements in knowledge about dementia (p < .001) and inequalities (p < .001). DISCUSSION: The game can be used to improve knowledge about dementia inequalities for health and social care professionals, carers, people living with dementia, decision makers and the general public. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This engagement activity fully involved people with dementia, unpaid carers, health and social care professionals and Third Sector representatives throughout, with two unpaid carers as public advisers on the team.

A systematic review of digital access to post-diagnostic health and social care services for dementia.

OBJECTIVES: For many people with dementia and unpaid carers, using technology for care and support has become essential. Rapid proliferation of technology highlights the need to understand digital access to health and social care services for dementia. This mixed-methods systematic review aims to explore digital access to health and social care services for dementia, from the perspective of people with dementia and unpaid carers. METHODS: Nine electronic databases were searched in May 2023 for qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-method studies, published in English or German, focused on experiences of using technology-delivered health and social care services for people with dementia and unpaid carers. After removal of duplicates and screening, 44 empirical papers were included. RESULTS: From the 44 studies, findings were grouped into five categories, highlighting experiences for people with dementia and unpaid carers: (1) Adapting to technology, (2) Inequalities and variations in outcomes, (3) Impact on caring, (4) Impact on health, and (5) Impact on relationships. Proliferation of technology in care access emphasised the need for quick adaptation to technology and examination of its impact. The impact of such service delivery has evidenced mixed findings. There were improvements in the health and wellbeing of people with dementia and unpaid carers, and benefits for their dyadic relationship. However, using technology for health and social care access is not always possible and is often reliant on unpaid carers for support. Lower tech-literacy, lack of equipment or money to buy equipment and poor internet connection can impact the potential for positive outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Technology can bring great benefits: social inclusion, improved service access and care. However, using technology in service delivery in dementia needs careful thought. Professionals and service providers need to be cognizant of the complex nature of dementia, and the benefits and challenges of hybrid service delivery.

Internet and Telephone Support for Discontinuing Long-Term Antidepressants: The REDUCE Cluster Randomized Trial.

Importance: There is significant concern regarding increasing long-term antidepressant treatment for depression beyond an evidence-based duration. Objective: To determine whether adding internet and telephone support to a family practitioner review to consider discontinuing long-term antidepressant treatment is safe and more effective than a practitioner review alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cluster randomized clinical trial, 131 UK family practices were randomized between December 1, 2018, and March 31, 2022, with remote computerized allocation and 12 months of follow-up. Participants and researchers were aware of allocation, but analysis was blind. Participants were adults who were receiving antidepressants for more than 1 year for a first episode of depression or more than 2 years for recurrent depression who were currently well enough to consider discontinuation and wished to do so and who were at low risk of relapse. Of 6725 patients mailed invitations, 330 (4.9%) were eligible and consented. Interventions: Internet and telephone self-management support, codesigned and coproduced with patients and practitioners. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary (safety) outcome was depression at 6 months (prespecified complete-case analysis), testing for noninferiority of the intervention to under 2 points on the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Secondary outcomes (testing for superiority) were antidepressant discontinuation, anxiety, quality of life, antidepressant withdrawal symptoms, mental well-being, enablement, satisfaction, use of health care services, and adverse events. Analyses for the main outcomes were performed on a complete-case basis, and multiple imputation sensitivity analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Results: Of 330 participants recruited (325 eligible for inclusion; 178 in intervention practices and 147 in control practices; mean [SD] age at baseline, 54.0 [14.9] years; 223 women [68.6%]), 276 (83.6%) were followed up at 6 months, and 240 (72.7%) at 12 months. The intervention proved noninferior; mean (SD) PHQ-9 scores at 6 months were slightly lower in the intervention arm than in the control arm in the complete-case analysis (4.0 [4.3] vs 5.0 [4.7]; adjusted difference, -1.1; 95% CI, -2.1 to -0.1; P = .03) but not significantly different in an intention-to-treat multiple imputation sensitivity analysis (adjusted difference, -0.9 (95% CI, -1.9 to 0.1; P = .08). By 6 months, antidepressants had been discontinued by 66 of 145 intervention arm participants (45.5%) who provided discontinuation data and 54 of 129 control arm participants (41.9%) (adjusted odds ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.52-1.99; P = .96). In the intervention arm, antidepressant withdrawal symptoms were less severe, and mental well-being was better compared with the control arm; differences were small but significant. There were no significant differences in the other outcomes; 28 of 179 intervention arm participants (15.6%) and 22 of 151 control arm participants (14.6%) experienced adverse events. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cluster randomized clinical trial of adding internet and telephone support to a practitioner review for possible antidepressant discontinuation, depression was slightly better with support, but the rate of discontinuation of antidepressants did not significantly increase. Improvements in antidepressant withdrawal symptoms and mental well-being were also small. There were no significant harms. Family practitioner review for possible discontinuation of antidepressants appeared safe and effective for more than 40% of patients willing and well enough to discontinue. Trial Registration: ISRCTN registry Identifiers: ISRCTN15036829 (internal pilot trial) and ISRCTN12417565 (main trial).

Integrated care policy recommendations for complex multisystem long term conditions and long COVID.

The importance of integrated care for complex, multiple long term conditions was acknowledged before the COVID pandemic but remained a challenge. The pandemic and consequent development of Long COVID required rapid adaptation of health services to address the population's needs, requiring service redesigns including integrated care. This Delphi consensus study was conducted in the UK and found similar integrated care priorities for Long COVID and complex, multiple long term conditions, provided by 480 patients and health care providers, with an 80% consensus rate. The resultant recommendations were based on more than 1400 responses from survey participants and were supported by patients, health care professionals, and by patient charities. Participants identified the need to allocate resources to: support integrated care, provide access to care and treatments that work, provide diagnostic procedures that support the personalization of treatment in an integrated care environment, and enable structural consultation between primary and specialist care settings including physical and mental health care. Based on the findings we propose a model for delivering integrated care by a multidisciplinary team to people with complex multisystem conditions. These recommendations can inform improvements to integrated care for complex, multiple long term conditions and Long COVID at international level.

Unravelling the dynamics of mental health inequalities in England: A 12-year nationwide longitudinal spatial analysis of recorded depression prevalence.

Background: Depression is one of the most significant public health issues, but evidence of geographic patterns and trends of depression is limited. We aimed to examine the spatio-temporal patterns and trends of depression prevalence among adults in a nationwide longitudinal spatial study in England and evaluate the influence of neighbourhood socioeconomic deprivation in explaining patterns. Methods: Information on recorded depression prevalence was obtained from the indicator Quality and Outcomes Framework: Depression prevalence that measured the annual percentage of adults diagnosed with depression for Lower Super Output Areas (LSOA) from 2011 to 2022. We applied Cluster and Outlier Analysis using the Local Moran's I algorithm. Local effects of deprivation on depression in 2020 examined with Geographically Weighted Regression (GWR). Inequalities in recorded prevalence were presented using Prevalence Rate Ratios (PRR). Results: The North West Region of England had the highest concentration of High-High clusters of depression, with 17.4% of the area having high values surrounded by high values in both space and time and the greatest percentage of areas with a high rate of increase (43.1%). Inequalities widened among areas with a high rate of increase in prevalence compared to those with a lower rate of increase, with the PRR increasing from 1.66 (99% CI 1.61-1.70) in 2011 to 1.81 (99% CI 1.76-1.85) by 2022. Deprivation explained 3%-39% of the variance in depression in 2020 across the country. Conclusions: It is crucial to monitor depression's spatial patterns and trends and investigate mechanisms of mental health inequalities. Our findings can help identify priority areas and target prevention and intervention strategies in England. Evaluating mental health interventions in different geographic contexts can provide valuable insights to policymakers on the most effective and context-sensitive strategies, enabling them to allocate resources towards preventing the worsening of mental health inequalities.

Barriers to healthcare access and experiences of stigma: Findings from a coproduced Long Covid case-finding study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Long Covid is often stigmatised, particularly in people who are disadvantaged within society. This may prevent them from seeking help and could lead to widening health inequalities. This coproduced study with a Community Advisory Board (CAB) of people with Long Covid aimed to understand healthcare and wider barriers and stigma experienced by people with probable Long Covid. METHODS: An active case finding approach was employed to find adults with probable, but not yet clinically diagnosed, Long Covid in two localities in London (Camden and Merton) and Derbyshire, England. Interviews explored the barriers to care and the stigma faced by participants and were analysed thematically. This study forms part of the STIMULATE-ICP Collaboration. FINDINGS: Twenty-three interviews were completed. Participants reported limited awareness of what Long Covid is and the available pathways to management. There was considerable self-doubt among participants, sometimes reinforced by interactions with healthcare professionals (HCPs). Participants questioned their deservedness in seeking healthcare support for their symptoms. Hesitancy to engage with healthcare services was motivated by fear of needing more investigation and concerns regarding judgement about the ability to carry out caregiving responsibilities. It was also motivated by the complexity of the clinical presentation and fear of all symptoms being attributed to poor mental health. Participants also reported trying to avoid overburdening the health system. These difficulties were compounded by experiences of stigma and discrimination. The emerging themes reaffirmed a framework of epistemic injustice in relation to Long Covid, where creating, interpreting and conveying knowledge has varied credibility based on the teller's identity characteristics and/or the level of their interpretive resources. CONCLUSION: We have codeveloped recommendations based on the findings. These include early signposting to services, dedicating protected time to listening to people with Long Covid, providing a holistic approach in care pathways, and working to mitigate stigma. Regardless of the diagnosis, people experiencing new symptoms must be encouraged to seek timely medical help. Clear public health messaging is needed among communities already disadvantaged by epistemic injustice to raise awareness of Long Covid, and to share stories that encourage seeking care and to illustrate the adverse effects of stigma. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study was coproduced with a CAB made up of 23 members including HCPs, people with lived experience of Long Covid and other stakeholders.

Accessing care for Long Covid from the perspectives of patients and healthcare practitioners: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Long Covid is an emerging long-term condition, with those affected raising concerns about lack of healthcare support. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a qualitative study to identify facilitators and barriers to healthcare access for people with Long Covid, aiming to enhance our understanding of the specific nature of these barriers and how patient experiences may vary. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: In the context of the Symptoms, Trajectory, Inequalities and Management: Understanding Long-COVID to Address and Transform Existing Integrated Care Pathways (STIMULATE-ICP) Delphi study, a nationally distributed online survey was conducted. Eight patients and eight healthcare practitioners (HCP) were interviewed via telephone or video call. Framework analysis, sensitised by the candidacy theory, was used to identify barriers and facilitators over four levels of access to care. RESULTS: Three themes were identified: (i) patients' efforts to navigate emerging pathways for Long Covid, (ii) the patient-HCP interaction and (iii) service resources and structural constraints. Barriers to specialist care included long waiting times, communication gaps across services and a lack of continuity in care. Facilitators included collaborative, patient-centred approaches, patients' active role in their healthcare and blended approaches for appointments. The perspectives of both patients and HCPs largely aligned. DISCUSSION: The candidacy framework was valuable in understanding the experiences of people with Long Covid seeking access to healthcare. Individuals perceived themselves as eligible for care, but they often encountered obstacles in obtaining the expected level of care or, in some cases, did not receive it at all. Our findings are discussed in the context of the candidacy model through multiple processes of identification, negotiation, permeability and appearances at health services. These themes seem to be especially important for the emerging new pathway model and are relevant to both primary and secondary care. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights that despite these interviews being conducted two years after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, people with Long Covid still struggle to access healthcare, emphasising the ongoing need to provide equitable timely healthcare access for people with Long Covid. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: People with Long Covid advised on all stages of this research.

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.

Do people with dementia and carers get what they need? Barriers in social care and carers needs assessments.

BACKGROUND: People with dementia and unpaid carers need to go through a social care or carers needs assessment to access and receive subsidised or fully-funded social care. With no previous evidence, this qualitative study aimed to provide insights into the access to, experiences of receiving and conducting social care or carers needs assessments, and access to social care. METHODS: Unpaid carers of people with dementia and professionals conducting social care or carers needs assessment living or working in England were interviewed remotely about their experiences between April and August 2023. Topic guides were co-produced with two unpaid carers, and both were supported to code anonymised transcripts. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. FINDINGS: Twenty-seven unpaid carers (n = 21) and professionals (n = 6) participated. Four themes were generated: (1) Issues with accessing needs assessments, not the process; (2) Knowledge of needs assessments and the health and social care system; (3) Expectations of unpaid carers; and (4) Post-assessment unmet needs. The most prominent barriers unpaid carers and their relatives with dementia encountered were awareness of and access to needs assessment. Unpaid carers were mostly unaware of the existence and entitlement to a needs assessment, and sometimes realised they had participated in one without their knowledge. Professionals described the pressures on their time and the lack of financial resources within services. CONCLUSIONS: To facilitate improved access to dementia care and support for carers, the pathway to accessing needs assessments needs to be clearer, with better integration and communication between health and social care.

Prevalence of mental health conditions and brain fog in people with long COVID: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Long COVID can include impaired cognition ('brain fog'; a term encompassing multiple symptoms) and mental health conditions. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate their prevalence and to explore relevant factors associated with the incidence of impaired cognition and mental health conditions. METHODS: Searches were conducted in Medline and PsycINFO to cover the start of the pandemic until August 2023. Included studies reported prevalence of mental health conditions and brain fog in adults with long COVID after clinically-diagnosed or PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. FINDINGS: 17 studies were included, reporting 41,249 long COVID patients. Across all timepoints (3-24 months), the combined prevalence of mental health conditions and brain fog was 20·4% (95% CI 11·1%-34·4%), being lower among those previously hospitalised than in community-managed patients(19·5 vs 29·7% respectively; p = 0·047). The odds of mental health conditions and brain fog increased over time and when validated instruments were used. Odds of brain fog significantly decreased with increasing vaccination rates (p = ·000). CONCLUSIONS: Given the increasing prevalence of mental health conditions and brain fog over time, preventive interventions and treatments are needed. Research is needed to explore underlying mechanisms that could inform further research in development of effective treatments. The reduced risk of brain fog associated with vaccination emphasizes the need for ongoing vaccination programs.

Clinical academics' experiences of REF2021.

The UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) is an assessment of the quality of research carried out in UK Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), performed in 7-year cycles. The outcome impacts the rankings and funding of UK HEIs, which afford the exercise high priority. Much of what REF measures is known to be biased against academics with protected characteristics: for example, women and ethnic minority researchers are less likely to win grants or be published in prestigious journals. Despite changes to REF since 2014, the risk remains that the process might amplify well-recognised existing disparities. The BMA Women in Academic Medicine and Medical Academic Staff Committee carried out a survey of UK clinical academics' experiences of REF2021. The data indicated the persistence of activities previously characterised as 'extremely harmful' in Research England-commissioned work, affecting up to 10% of clinical academics. While acknowledging the limitations of the data, women appeared to be disproportionately affected.

Community-based mental health interventions in low- and middle-income countries: a qualitative study with international experts.

BACKGROUND: Mental health services are scarce in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and designing and implementing effective interventions can be difficult. The aim of this international study was to explore the key lessons for developing, implementing, and evaluating community-based mental health and well-being interventions in LMICs, with an additional focus on older adults. METHODS: Research and clinical experts in developing and implementing psychosocial community-based interventions in LMICs were interviewed remotely between October 2021 and January 2022. Participants were recruited via existing global health networks and via published literature searches. Participants were asked about their experiences of developing and implementing interventions, and about key barriers and facilitators during the process. Interviews lasted up to 45 min, and data were analysed using combined inductive and deductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Sixteen global mental health experts participated. Five themes with different sub-themes were generated: Mechanisms and contexts; Barriers; Facilitators; Public and stakeholder involvement; Looking through an ageing lens. The development and delivery of mental health interventions in LMICs are facilitated through integration into existing health infrastructures and working with existing job roles as delivery agents. Public and stakeholder involvement are crucial at all stages of development through to implementation to focus on meeting local needs and sustaining participant motivation. Logistical barriers of transport, resources, and location need to be addressed, emphasising local sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides important insights for how the development, implementation, and evaluation of community-based mental health and well-being interventions in LMICs can be optimised, and can complement general guidance into complex interventions developments.

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

BACKGROUND: Outcome monitoring of depression treatment is recommended but there is a lack of evidence on patient benefit in primary care. AIM: To test monitoring depression using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) with patient feedback. DESIGN AND SETTING: An open cluster-randomised controlled trial was undertaken in 141 group practices. METHOD: Adults with new depressive episodes were recruited through record searches and opportunistically. The exclusion criteria were as follows: dementia; psychosis; substance misuse; and suicide risk. The PHQ-9 was administered soon after diagnosis, and 10-35 days later. The primary outcome was the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) score at 12 weeks. The secondary outcomes were as follows: BDI-II at 26 weeks; Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS) and EuroQol EQ-5D-5L quality of life at 12 and 26 weeks; antidepressant treatment; mental health and social service contacts; adverse events, and Medical Interview Satisfaction Scale (MISS) over 26 weeks. RESULTS: In total, 302 patients were recruited to the intervention arm and 227 to the controls. At 12 weeks, 254 (84.1%) and 199 (87.7%) were followed-up, respectively. Only 40.9% of patients in the intervention 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% confidence interval [CI] = -2.16 to 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 = 0.013 to 0.093. 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 patients in the intervention arm with a recorded follow-up PHQ-9 (P = 0.025 and P = 0.010, respectively). CONCLUSION: 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.