Healthcare utilization in general practice before and after psychological treatment: a follow-up data linkage study in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: Literature suggests that serious mental health problems increase the use of health services and psychological interventions can reduce this effect. This study investigates whether this effect is also found in primary care patients with less serious mental health problems. DESIGN/SETTING: Routine electronic health records (EHR) from a representative sample of 128 general practices were linked to patient files from 150 primary care psychologists participating in the NIVEL Primary Care Database, using a trusted third party. Data were linked using the date of birth, gender, and postcode. This yielded 503 unique data pairs that were listed in one of the participating GP practices in 2008-2010, for people who had psychological treatment from a psychologist that ended in 2009. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The number of contacts, health problems presented, and prescribed medication in general practice were analysed before and after the psychological treatment. RESULTS: Nearly all 503 patients consulted their GP during the six months preceding the psychological treatment (90.9%) and also in the six months after this treatment had ended (83.7%). The frequency of contacts was significantly higher before than after the psychological treatment (6.1 vs. 4.8). Fewer patients contacted their GPs specifically for psychological or social problems (46.3% vs. 38.8%) and fewer patients had anxiolytic drug prescriptions (15.5% vs. 7.6%) after psychological treatment. CONCLUSION: After psychological treatment, patients contact their GPs less often and present fewer psychological or social problems. Although contact rates seem to decrease, clients of psychologists are still frequent GP attenders.

Outcomes for depression and anxiety in primary care and details of treatment: a naturalistic longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence as to whether or not guideline concordant care in general practice results in better clinical outcomes for people with anxiety and depression. This study aims to determine possible associations between guideline concordant care and clinical outcomes in general practice patients with depression and anxiety, and identify patient and treatment characteristics associated with clinical improvement. METHODS: This study forms part of the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA).Adult patients, recruited in general practice (67 GPs), were interviewed to assess DSM-IV diagnoses during baseline assessment of NESDA, and also completed questionnaires measuring symptom severity, received care, socio-demographic variables and social support both at baseline and 12 months later. The definition of guideline adherence was based on an algorithm on care received. Information on guideline adherence was obtained from GP medical records. RESULTS: 721 patients with a current (6-month recency) anxiety or depressive disorder participated. While patients who received guideline concordant care (N=281) suffered from more severe symptoms than patients who received non-guideline concordant care (N=440), both groups showed equal improvement in their depressive or anxiety symptoms after 12 months. Patients who (still) had moderate or severe symptoms at follow-up, were more often unemployed, had smaller personal networks and more severe depressive symptoms at baseline than patients with mild symptoms at follow-up. The particular type of treatment followed made no difference to clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: The added value of guideline concordant care could not be demonstrated in this study. Symptom severity, employment status, social support and comorbidity of anxiety and depression all play a role in poor clinical outcomes.

[Appropriate care for anxiety and depression]. / Gepaste zorg voor mensen met angst of depressie.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate care received for anxiety and depression, to identify which patient-, GP- and practice factors obstruct delivery of care in accordance with Dutch College of General Practitioners' (NHG) practice guidelines, and to evaluate the costs and effects of guideline-concordant care. DESIGN: Descriptive study. METHODS: During the baseline assessment of the Netherlands study of depression and anxiety--which has followed a large number of adults with and without psychiatric complaints since 2004--various questionnaires and diagnostic interviews were completed. At one year follow-up, the severity of symptoms of anxiety and depression, overall functioning or dysfunction, healthcare use and absenteeism from employment over the past year were assessed. Data from electronic medical patient records were studied to determine whether NHG practice guidelines had been followed. RESULTS: Of the 721 patients with an anxiety or depressive disorder, 57% (n = 413) indicated receiving some form of care; two-thirds of this group received appropriate care according to NHG practice guidelines (n = 281). At patient level the severity of depressive symptoms, the self-evaluated need for care, a high level of education and accessibility of care were most strongly associated with guideline adherence; at general practitioner level, collaboration with other mental health professionals was most strongly associated with guideline adherence. On average, all patients had symptoms that were less serious than a year previously, irrespective of which care they had received. Guideline-concordant care was significantly more expensive. CONCLUSION: Half of the patients who had not received care did not think that they needed it. Of those who had received care, those with more severe symptoms and greatest need for care were most likely to have received guideline-concordant care. Both patients and general practitioners seemed well able to assess whether care was needed or not.

Patient factors associated with guideline-concordant treatment of anxiety and depression in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To identify associations of patient characteristics (predisposing, enabling and need factors) with guideline-concordant care for anxiety and depression in primary care. DESIGN: Analysis of data from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). PARTICIPANTS: Seven hundred and twenty-one patients with a current anxiety or depressive disorder, recruited from 67 general practitioners (GPs), were included. MEASURES: Diagnoses according to the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV) were made using a structured and widely validated assessment. Socio-demographic and enabling characteristics, severity of symptoms, disability, (under treatment for) chronic somatic conditions, perceived need for care, beliefs and evaluations of care were measured by questionnaires. Actual care data were derived from electronic medical records. Criteria for guideline-concordant care were based on general practice guidelines, issued by the Dutch College of General Practitioners. RESULTS: Two hundred and eighty-one (39%) patients received guideline-concordant care. High education level, accessibility of care, comorbidity of anxiety and depression, and severity and disability scores were positively associated with receiving guideline-concordant care in univariate analyses. In multivariate multi-level logistic regression models, significant associations with the clinical need factors disappeared. Positive evaluations of accessibility of care increased the chance (OR = 1.31; 95%-CI = 1.05-1.65; p = 0.02) of receiving guideline-concordant care, as well as perceiving any need for medication (OR = 2.99; 95%-CI = 1.84-4.85; p < 0.001), counseling (OR = 2.25; 95%-CI = 1.29-3.95; p = 0.005) or a referral (OR = 1.83; 95%-CI = 1.09-3.09; p = 0.02). A low educational level decreased the odds (OR = 0.33; 95%-CI = 0.11-0.98; p = 0.04) of receiving guideline-concordant care. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that education level, accessibility of care and patients' perceived needs for care are more strongly associated with the delivery of guideline-concordant care for anxiety or depression than clinical need factors. Initiatives to improve GPs' communication skills around mental health issues, and to improve recognition of people suffering from anxiety disorders, could increase the number of patients receiving treatment for depression and anxiety in primary care.

Primary care patients with anxiety and depression: need for care from the patient's perspective.

BACKGROUND: Many anxiety and depression patients receive no care, resulting in unnecessary suffering and high costs. Specific beliefs and the absence of a perceived need for care are major reasons for not receiving care. This study aims to determine the specific perceived need for care in primary care patients with anxiety and depression, and examine to what extent these different needs are met. METHODS: Cross-sectional data were derived from The Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). In 622 primary care patients with a current (6-month recency) diagnosis of depression and/or anxiety disorder who recognised their mental health problem themselves, the perceived need for mental health care was measured by the Perceived Need for Care Questionnaire (PNCQ). Possible determinants were measured in the same interview by means of a questionnaire. RESULTS: Most patients with anxiety or depression expressed a need for counselling or information. Medication, practical support, skills training and a referral were less often perceived to be needed. Multiple logistic regression analyses revealed that after controlling for age, clinical status and disability, patients' confidence in professional help and their evaluation of received care positively influenced their perception of a need for medication and counselling. CONCLUSIONS: Although no conclusions can be made about what type of care was specifically not wanted, patients with anxiety or depression mostly want to receive information and counselling. Health professionals should be aware of the fact that there are differences in perceived need for care between subgroups of patients, based on their beliefs and their evaluation of care.

Receiving treatment for common mental disorders.

OBJECTIVE: Anxiety and depressive disorders are widely prevalent, but patients are only treated in a minority of cases. In this study, the explanation of receiving mental health treatment is sought in predisposing and enabling characteristics and indicators for objective and self-perceived need. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of data collected in the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA) among 743 persons with an anxiety and/or depression diagnosis as assessed by the CIDI. Receipt of mental health treatment was assessed in the face-to-face interview, as well as indicators of predisposing and enabling factors and variables evaluating need for care. RESULTS: Of the total sample, 57% received treatment in the past 6 months in the general practice setting (50%) or the mental health care setting (14%). Younger patients, patients who evaluated their providers better on communicative abilities and patients who perceived mental health problems themselves had greater odds of having professional mental health contacts in the primary care setting. Confidence in professional help and higher severity of mental problems were associated with greater odds of having specialized mental health care. CONCLUSION: Receiving help for common mental disorders depends not only on the objective need of the patient but also at least as much on the patients' own recognition that their problems have a mental health origin. Furthermore, in primary care especially, the patients' judgment of their providers' affective abilities may be decisive for being treated. For receiving specialized care, patients are also directed by their confidence in professional help.

Health beliefs and perceived need for mental health care of anxiety and depression--the patients' perspective explored.

Patients' illness representations and beliefs about treatment for depression and anxiety, as well as their perceived needs, are important for treatment. A systematic review was conducted of 71 studies describing the beliefs or perceived needs of patients and non-patients. Patients give multi-dimensional explanations for depression and see both psychological and medication treatment as helpful. People who suffer from depression have more positive beliefs about biological etiology and medication treatment than healthy people, or those with less severe depressive symptoms. Anxiety patients view psychological interventions as their best treatment option. Between 49% and 84% of the patients with depression or anxiety perceive a need for treatment, mostly for counseling and medication. All patients prefer psychological treatment forms to medication. A majority of patients view antidepressants as addictive and many perceive stigma and see practical and economic barriers to care. The most vulnerable groups in terms of seeking and receiving mental health care for depression and anxiety seem to be minority groups, as well as younger and older patients. More research is required into the specific needs of anxiety and depression patients. Open communication between patient and provider could lead to valuable improvements in treatment.

Low relationship satisfaction and high partner involvement predict sexual problems of women with fibromyalgia.

To examine the predictive potential of relationship variables on sexual functioning in women with fibromyalgia, we instructed 63 women (age 21-54 years) to fill out several questionnaires. Low relationship satisfaction was the strongest and most-frequent predictor of problematic sexual functioning. In addition, more fatigue and--only after taking account of relationship satisfaction--more active engagement (i.e., involvement) of the spouse were associated with reduced sexual functioning and satisfaction. Our study suggests that for women with fibromyalgia, relationship satisfaction is good for sexual functioning. Although having an involved spouse is good for the relationship, it may be bad for sexual functioning.