Discussing depression in patients with visual impairment differs across countries: Validation of a prediction model in healthcare providers.

PURPOSE: Healthcare providers often experience difficulties in discussing depression with adults with visual impairment (VI), obstructing timely referral. The purpose of this study was to examine predictors of routine discussions of depression with adults with VI from the perspective of different healthcare providers from different countries. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey data from Welsh (N = 122), Australian (N = 94) and Dutch (N = 100) healthcare providers, that is eye care practitioners (ECPs) and low-vision care providers (LVCPs), were analysed. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed in the Welsh sample to determine predictors for discussing depression. Internal validation was conducted by using a bootstrap method, and the recalibrated model was externally validated in the Australian and Dutch sample. RESULTS: Work experience in eye care services (OR 0.95; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 0.99) and perceived barriers (OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.92 to 0.98) was found to predict discussing depression with patients. The area under the curve (AUC) of 0.73 reflected good discrimination of the model. The model showed a slightly better fit in the Australian sample (AUC = 0.77), but a poor fit in the Dutch sample. CONCLUSION: The final prediction model was not generalizable to Dutch healthcare providers. They perceived less barriers in depression management than Welsh and Australian healthcare providers. This could be explained by differences in ECPs and LVCPs roles and responsibilities, increased attention on mental health and differences in organizing health care. Differences between healthcare providers' responsibilities and support needs should be taken into account while creating a facilitating environment to discuss depression.

Depression in Visual Impairment Trial (DEPVIT): A Randomized Clinical Trial of Depression Treatments in People With Low Vision.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare two interventions for depression, problem solving treatment (PST) and referral to the patient's physician, with a waiting-list control group in people with sight loss and depressive symptoms. METHODS: This was an assessor-masked, exploratory, multicenter, randomized clinical trial, with concurrent economic analysis. Of 1008 consecutive attendees at 14 low-vision rehabilitation centers in Britain, 43% (n = 430) screened positive for depressive symptoms on the Geriatric Depression Scale and 85 of these attendees participated in the trial. Eligible participants were randomized in the ratio 1:1:1 to PST, referral to their physician, or a waiting-list control arm. PST is a manualized talking intervention delivered by a trained therapist who teaches people over six to eight sessions to implement a seven-step method for solving their problems. Referral to the physician involved sending a referral letter to the person's physician, encouraging him or her to consider treatment according to the stepped care protocol recommended by the U.K.'s National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. The primary outcome was change in depressive symptoms (6 months after baseline) as determined by the Beck Depression Inventory. RESULTS: At 6 months, Beck Depression Inventory scores reduced by 1.05 (SD 8.85), 2.11 (SD 7.60), and 2.68 (SD 7.93) in the waiting-list control, referral, and PST arms, respectively. The cost per patient of the PST intervention was £1176 in Wales and £1296 in London. CONCLUSIONS: Depressive symptoms improved most in the PST group and least in the control group. However, the change was small and the uncertainty of the measurements relatively large.