Can We Prevent Depression in At-Risk Older Adults Using Self-Help? The UK SHARD Trial of Behavioral Activation.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of established depression is the dominant approach to care of older adults, but prevention holds much promise. Self-help interventions are a feasible preventive approach, since they are scalable and low cost. There are few trials in this area. Behavioral Activation (BA) is a credible candidate psychological approach, which has been shown to work in therapist led care but not been trialled in a self-help form. AIM: To test the effectiveness of an unguided self-help intervention based on BA for older adults. METHODS: We compared a self-help intervention based on BA for older people (n = 172) to usual care (n = 160) in a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Outcomes were depression status and severity (PHQ9) and health related quality of life (SF12). The primary timepoint of the primary outcome was depression at 4 months, with longer term follow up at 12 months to test sustained impact of the primary outcome. RESULTS: At 4 months adjusted PHQ-9 scores for BA self-help were 0.79 lower (95% CI: -1.70 to 0.13; p = 0.09) and the proportion of participants with case-level depression was significantly reduced (BA 31/137 (22.6%) versus usual care 41/141 (29.1%); Odds Ratio 0.48; 95% CI: 0.26-0.92; p = 0.03). There was no PHQ-9 difference at 12 months or for health related quality of life at any point (4 or 12 months). DISCUSSION: Self-help using BA for older people at risk of depression is a feasible and scalable intervention with potential short-term benefits in preventing depression.

Meta-analysis of diagnostic properties of the Whooley questions to identify depression in perinatal women.

BACKGROUND: This study's objective was to assess the diagnostic properties of the Whooley questions in identifying depression among perinatal women according to previously published studies. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies investigating the diagnostic accuracy of the Whooley questions in perinatal women. METHODS: Nine databases were searched in October 2021. All primary studies evaluated the diagnostic properties of the Whooley questions compared with a diagnostic gold standard in women during the perinatal period or, if not identified as being in the perinatal stage within the study, women between 20 weeks' gestation to 4 weeks post-delivery. A bivariate mixed-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate pooled diagnostic properties and measure heterogeneity. Meta-regression was conducted to evaluate factors contributing to heterogeneity. RESULTS: Six studies were included in the review; five were used in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity (95 % confidence interval) was 0.95 (0.81-0.99), pooled specificity was 0.60 (0.44-0.74), pooled positive likelihood ratio was 2.4 (1.6-3.4), pooled negative likelihood ratio was 0.09 (0.02-0.32), and pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 27 (7-106); heterogeneity was substantial (I2 = 0.90, 0.81-1.00). Participant age and setting (community vs. hospital) significantly contributed to heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: The Whooley questions have high sensitivity but moderate specificity for perinatal women. The Whooley questions are a short and acceptable tool for identifying depression in perinatal women. However, a potential risk exists of incorrectly identifying a high proportion of women as positive. Using the Whooley questions followed by a secondary case-finding tool could reduce the misdiagnosis risk.

Enacting open disclosure in the UK National Health Service: A qualitative exploration.

BACKGROUND: Open and honest discussion between healthcare providers and patients and families affected by error is considered to be a central feature of high quality and safer patient care, evidenced by the implementation of open disclosure policies and guidance internationally. This paper discusses the perceived enablers that UK doctors and nurses report as facilitating the enactment of open disclosure. METHODS: Semistructured interviews with 13 doctors and 22 nurses from a range of levels and specialities from 5 national health service hospitals and primary care trusts in the UK were conducted and analysed using a framework approach. RESULTS: Five themes were identified which appear to capture the factors that are critical in supporting open disclosure: open disclosure as a moral and professional duty, positive past experiences, perceptions of reduced litigation, role models and guidance, and clarity. CONCLUSION: Greater openness in relation to adverse events requires health professionals to recognise candour as a professional and moral duty, exemplified in the behaviour of senior clinicians and that seems more likely to occur in a nonpunitive, learning environment. Recognising incident disclosure as part of ongoing respectful and open communication with patients throughout their care is critical.

Being open about unanticipated problems in health care: the challenges of uncertainties.

Discussion of unanticipated problems in care with patients and their families ('open disclosure') is now widely advocated. Despite international efforts and the introduction of a range of policies and guidance to promote such discussions, the expectations of policy makers and patients are often not matched in practice. We consider some reasons for the persistence of shortfalls in the occurrence and quality of open disclosure. We draw on research conducted to investigate the implementation of a 'Being open' policy in England, reflecting particularly on insights derived from interviews with health care professionals. Health care professionals were broadly supportive of the idea of open disclosure. Some expressed well-recognized concern about punishment and being blamed, but this did not appear to be the main driver of their communication practices. Their accounts of what happened around particular problems in health care indicated that they brought a complex range of considerations to bear on questions of whether and how these were discussed with patients and relatives. Guidance about open disclosure based on assessments of levels of harm to patients can complicate and perhaps distort health care professionals' approaches, particularly when the extent and/or cause of harm was uncertain. Health care professionals who engage in open disclosure must be able to negotiate appropriate ways through complex and sensitive discussions. The responses of patients and relatives are not always predictable and even the best open disclosure practice may not resolve problems and concerns. Guidance, training and support for staff need to reflect these challenges.

The contribution of nurses to incident disclosure: a narrative review.

OBJECTIVES: To explore (a) how nurses feel about disclosing patient safety incidents to patients, (b) the current contribution that nurses make to the process of disclosing patient safety incidents to patients and (c) the barriers that nurses report as inhibiting their involvement in disclosure. DESIGN: A systematic search process was used to identify and select all relevant material. Heterogeneity in study design of the included articles prohibited a meta-analysis and findings were therefore synthesised in a narrative review. DATA SOURCES: A range of text words, synonyms and subject headings were developed in conjunction with the York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and used to undertake a systematic search of electronic databases (MEDLINE; EMBASE; CENTRAL; PsycINFO; Health Management and Information Consortium; CINAHL; ASSIA; Science Citation Index; Social Science Citation Index; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects; Health Technology Assessment Database; Health Systems Evidence; PASCAL; LILACS). Retrieval of studies was restricted to those published after 1980. Further data sources were: websites, grey literature, research in progress databases, hand-searching of relevant journals and author contact. REVIEW METHODS: The title and abstract of each citation was independently screened by two reviewers and disagreements resolved by consensus or consultation with a third person. Full text articles retrieved were further screened against the inclusion and exclusion criteria then checked by a second reviewer (YB). Relevant data were extracted and findings were synthesised in a narrative empirical synthesis. RESULTS: The systematic search and selection process identified 15 publications which included 11 unique studies that emerged from a range of locations. Findings suggest that nurses currently support both physicians and patients through incident disclosure, but may be ill-prepared to disclose incidents independently. Barriers to nurse involvement included a lack of opportunities for education and training, and the multiple and sometimes conflicting roles within nursing. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous potential benefits were identified that may result from nurses having a greater contribution to the disclosure process, but the provision of support and training is essential to overcome the reported barriers faced by nurses internationally.

CASPER plus (CollAborative care in Screen-Positive EldeRs with major depressive disorder): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Depression accounts for the greatest disease burden of all mental health disorders, contributes heavily to healthcare costs, and by 2020 is set to become the second largest cause of global disability. Although 10% to 16% of people aged 65 years and over are likely to experience depressive symptoms, the condition is under-diagnosed and often inadequately treated in primary care. Later-life depression is associated with chronic illness and disability, cognitive impairment and social isolation. With a progressively ageing population it becomes increasingly important to refine strategies to identity and manage depression in older people. Currently, management may be limited to the prescription of antidepressants where there may be poor concordance; older people may lack awareness of psychosocial interventions and general practitioners may neglect to offer this treatment option. METHODS/DESIGN: CASPER Plus is a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of a collaborative care intervention for individuals aged 65 years and over experiencing moderate to severe depression. Selected practices in the North of England identify potentially eligible patients and invite them to participate in the study. A diagnostic interview is carried out and participants with major depressive disorder are randomised to either collaborative care or usual care. The recruitment target is 450 participants. The intervention, behavioural activation and medication management in a collaborative care framework, has been adapted to meet the complex needs of older people. It is delivered over eight to 10 weekly sessions by a case manager liaising with general practitioners. The trial aims to evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of collaborative care in addition to usual GP care versus usual GP care alone. The primary clinical outcome, depression severity, will be measured with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) at baseline, 4, 12 and 18 months. Cost effectiveness analysis will assess health-related quality of life using the SF-12 and EQ-5D and will examine cost-consequences of collaborative care. A qualitative process evaluation will be undertaken to explore acceptability, gauge the extent to which the intervention is implemented and to explore sustainability beyond the clinical trial. DISCUSSION: Results will add to existing evidence and a positive outcome may lead to the commissioning of this model of service in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN45842879 (24 July 2012).