Obesity and mental disorders in the general population: results from the world mental health surveys.

OBJECTIVES: (1) To investigate whether there is an association between obesity and mental disorders in the general populations of diverse countries, and (2) to establish whether demographic variables (sex, age, education) moderate any associations observed. DESIGN: Thirteen cross-sectional, general population surveys conducted as part of the World Mental Health Surveys initiative. SUBJECTS: Household residing adults, 18 years and over (n=62 277). MEASUREMENTS: DSM-IV mental disorders (anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, alcohol use disorders) were assessed with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI 3.0), a fully structured diagnostic interview. Obesity was defined as a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m(2) or greater; severe obesity as BMI 35+. Persons with BMI less than 18.5 were excluded from analysis. Height and weight were self-reported. RESULTS: Statistically significant, albeit modest associations (odds ratios generally in the range of 1.2-1.5) were observed between obesity and depressive disorders, and between obesity and anxiety disorders, in pooled data across countries. These associations were concentrated among those with severe obesity, and among females. Age and education had variable effects across depressive and anxiety disorders. CONCLUSIONS: The findings are suggestive of a modest relationship between obesity (particularly severe obesity) and emotional disorders among women in the general population. The study is limited by the self-report of BMI and cannot clarify the direction or nature of the relationship observed, but it may indicate a need for a research and clinical focus on the psychological heterogeneity of the obese population.

Assessing cow-calf welfare. Part 1: Benchmarking beef cow health and behavior, handling; and management, facilities, and producer perspectives.

Assessment programs are one way beef producers communicate information about animal welfare to retailers and the public. Programs that monitor cattle through the production cycle (e.g., the Global Animal Partnership) or at individual stages (e.g., slaughter; the North American Meat Institute) exist, but to date, there is no assessment program addressing welfare specifically in the cow-calf sector. The objectives of this study were to measure cow-calf health and handling welfare outcomes and gather management, facility, and producer perspective information to 1) describe current practices and 2) inform assessment design. A welfare assessment, designed using features of similar beef and dairy programs, was conducted on 30 California ranches that varied in size (mean 1,051 cows [SD 1,849], range 28 to 10,000 cows) and location within the state. Cattle health and behavior and stockperson handling were measured during a routine procedure (e.g., pregnancy checks) on breeding females ( = 3,065). Management and producer perspectives were evaluated through an interview, and facility features were recorded at the chute and water access points. Cattle health problems were rare and seen only on specific ranches (e.g., prevalence of lame cattle: mean 1.3% [SD 1.5], range 0 to 7.1%). Cattle behavior and stockperson handling varied between ranches (e.g., cattle balking: mean 22.0% [SD 21.9], range 1.6 to 78.3%; electric prod use: mean 23.5 [SD 21.5], range 0 to 73.0%). Although some management and facility characteristics were shared by most (e.g., all ranches castrated bull calves; 86% used alleyways with an anti-back gate), other aspects varied (e.g., weaning age: mean 8.2 mo [SD 1.4], range 6 to 11 mo; 43% used shade cover over chute). Most producers shared similar perspectives toward their herd health management plan, but their responses varied when asked to evaluate an animal's pain experience. In terms of assessment design, there were challenges with feasibility (e.g., scheduling a ranch visit on a day cattle were processed was difficult), validity (e.g., cattle may back up calmly to adjust posture or quickly in response to an aggressive handler; without this context, the welfare implications of this behavior are unclear), and comparability (e.g., an explicit animal observation period needed to be defined to make comparisons across ranches). Future assessment programs should consider these qualities when selecting measures to evaluate welfare.

Assessing cow-calf welfare. Part 2: Risk factors for beef cow health and behavior and stockperson handling.

Epidemiological studies can be used to identify risk factors for livestock welfare concerns but have not been conducted in the cow-calf sector for this purpose. The objectives of this study were to investigate the relationships of 1) herd-level management, facilities, and producer perspectives with cattle health and behavior and stockperson handling and 2) stockperson handling on cattle behavior at the individual cow level. Cow ( = 3,065) health and behavior and stockperson handling during a routine procedure (e.g., pregnancy checks) were observed on 30 California ranches. Management and producer perspectives were evaluated using an interview, and handling facility features were recorded at the chute. After predictors were screened for univariable associations, multivariable models were built for cattle health (i.e., thin body condition, lameness, abrasions, hairless patches, swelling, blind eyes, and dirtiness) and behavior (i.e., balking, vocalizing, stumbling and falling in the chute and while exiting the restraint, and running out of the restraint) and stockperson handling (i.e., electric prod use, moving aid use, tail twisting, and mis-catching cattle). When producers empathized more toward an animal's pain experience, there was a lower risk of swelling (odds ratio [OR] = 0.7) but a higher risk of lameness (OR = 1.3), which may indicate a lack of awareness of the latter. Training stockpersons using the Beef Quality Assurance program had a protective effect on cow cleanliness and mis-catching in the restraint (OR = 0.2 and OR = 0.5, respectively). Hydraulic chutes increased the risk of vocalizations (OR = 2.7), possibly because these systems can apply greater pressure to the sides of the animal than manual restraints. When a moving aid was used to move an individual cow, it increased the risk of her balking, but when hands, in particular, were used, the risk of balking decreased across the herd (OR = 34.1 and OR = 0.3, respectively). Likewise, individual cows were at a greater risk of balking, vocalizing, stumbling and falling in the chute, and stumbling and running at exit when they were touched with an electric prod (OR = 11.0, OR = 3.3, OR = 1.9, OR = 2.3, OR = 1.8, and OR = 1.7, respectively). Although the implications of using moving aids are unclear, reducing the use of electric prods could improve cattle handling. In conclusion, cattle handling was influenced by a number of facility and stockperson factors: personnel training, facility design, and electric prod use are key areas for future improvements.

Stability of somatization disorder and somatization symptoms among primary care patients.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic criteria for somatization disorder emphasize its early onset and long-term stability. Research assessments of somatization disorder depend on lifetime recall of medically unexplained somatic symptoms. METHODS: Longitudinal data from the World Health Organization Psychological Problems in General Health Care study were used to examine stability of somatization disorder and somatization symptoms over 12 months. At 15 study sites in 14 countries, consecutive primary care patients (N = 25916) were screened using the 12-item General Health Questionnaire. A stratified random sample (n = 5447) was selected for a baseline diagnostic assessment using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview. All cases and a random sample of noncases were asked to complete a follow-up diagnostic assessment 12 months later (n = 3196). RESULTS: While the baseline and 12-month interviews identified a similar number of patients with DSM-IV somatization disorder (74 and 70), only 21 cases were consistently identified at both assessments. Examination of individual symptoms found that 61% of lifetime medically unexplained somatic symptoms detected at baseline were not detected during the lifetime interview 12 months later. When analyses were broadened to all lifetime symptoms reported at baseline (including those found to be "medically explained" or "not clinically significant"), 43% of lifetime symptoms reported at baseline were "lost" 12 months later. CONCLUSIONS: Given that the baseline and follow-up assessments both asked about lifetime symptoms, the loss of somatization disorder or individual somatic symptoms can only represent inconsistent recall. The instability of recall observed here has significant implications for the diagnosis of somatization disorder by structured interview and may also have implications for current diagnostic criteria.

Health care costs of primary care patients with recognized depression.

BACKGROUND: While an extensive literature documents the influence of depression on general medical services utilization, estimates of the economic burden of depression have focused on the direct costs of depression treatment. Higher use of general medical services may contribute significantly to the true cost of depressive illness. METHODS: Computerized record systems of a large staff-model health maintenance organization (HMO) were used to identify consecutive primary care patients with visit diagnoses of depression (n = 6257) and a comparison sample of primary care patients with no depression diagnosis (n = 6257). The HMO accounting records were used to compare components of health care costs. RESULTS: Patients diagnosed as depressed had higher annual health care costs ($4246 vs $2371, P < .001) and higher costs for every category of care (eg, primary care, medical specialty, medical inpatient, pharmacy, laboratory). Similar cost differences were observed for each of the subgroups examined (patients treated with antidepressants, those not treated with antidepressants, and those diagnosed at routine physical examination visits). Pharmacy records indicated greater chronic medical illness in the diagnosed depression group, but large cost differences remained after adjustment ($3971 vs $2644). Twofold cost differences persisted for at least 12 months after initiation of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnosis of depression is associated with a generalized increase in use of health services that is only partially explained by comorbid medical conditions. In the primary care sector, this greater medical utilization exceeds direct treatment costs for depression. The persistence of utilization differences suggests that recognition and initiation of treatment alone are not adequate to reduce utilization differences.

Treating major depression in primary care practice: an update of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research Practice Guidelines.

The Depression Guideline Panel of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research in 1993 published recommendations for treating major depression in primary care practice that were often based on studies of tertiary care psychiatric patients. We reviewed reports of randomized controlled trials in primary care settings published between 1992 and 1998. This evidence indicates that both antidepressant pharmacotherapy and time-limited depression-targeted psychotherapies are efficacious when transferred from psychiatric to primary care settings. In most cases, the choice between these treatments should depend on patient preference. Studies to date suggest that improving treatment of depression in primary care requires properly organized treatment programs, regular patient follow-up, monitoring of treatment adherence, and a prominent role for the mental health specialist as educator, consultant, and clinician for the more severely ill. Future research should focus on how guidelines are best implemented in routine practice, since conventional dissemination strategies have little impact.

Treatment process and outcomes for managed care patients receiving new antidepressant prescriptions from psychiatrists and primary care physicians.

BACKGROUND: While many studies describe deficiencies in primary care antidepressant treatment, little research has applied similar standards to psychiatric practice. This study compares baseline characteristics, process of care, and outcomes for managed care patients who received new antidepressant prescriptions from psychiatrists and primary care physicians. METHODS: At a prepaid health plan in Washington State, patients receiving initial antidepressant prescriptions from psychiatrists (n = 165) and primary care physicians (n = 204) completed a baseline assessment, including the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV depression module, a 20-item depression assessment from the Symptom Checklist-90, and the Medical Outcomes Survey 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey functional status questionnaire. All measures were repeated after 2 and 6 months. Computerized data were used to assess antidepressant refills and follow-up visits over 6 months. RESULTS: At baseline, psychiatrists' patients reported slightly higher levels of functional impairment and greater prior use of specialty mental health care. During follow-up, psychiatrists' patients made more frequent follow-up visits, and the proportion making 3 or more visits in 90 days was 57% vs 26% for primary care physicians' patients. The proportion receiving antidepressant medication at an adequate dose for 90 days or more was similar (49% vs 48%). The 2 groups showed similar rates of improvement in all measures of symptom severity and functioning. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample, clinical differences between patients treated by psychiatrists and primary care physicians were modest. Shortcomings in depression treatment frequently noted in primary care (inadequate follow-up care and high rates of inadequate antidepressant treatment) were also common in specialty practice. Possible selection bias limits any conclusions about relative effectiveness or cost-effectiveness.

Cost-effectiveness of systematic depression treatment for high utilizers of general medical care.

BACKGROUND: Expanding access to high-quality depression treatment will depend on the balance of incremental benefits and costs. We examine the incremental cost-effectiveness of an organized depression management program for high utilizers of medical care. METHODS: Computerized records at 3 health maintenance organizations were used to identify adult patients with outpatient medical visit rates above the 85th percentile for 2 consecutive years. A 2-step screening process identified patients with current depressive disorders, who were not in active treatment. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to continued usual care (n = 189) or to an organized depression management program (n = 218). The program included patient education, antidepressant pharmacotherapy initiated in primary care (when appropriate), systematic telephone monitoring of adherence and outcomes, and psychiatric consultation as needed. Clinical outcomes (assessed using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale on 4 occasions throughout 12 months) were converted to measures of "depression-free days." Health services utilization and costs were estimated using health plan-standardized claims. RESULTS: The intervention program led to an adjusted increase of 47.7 depression-free days throughout 12 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 28.2-67.8 days). Estimated cost increases were $1008 per year (95% CI, $534-$1383) for outpatient health services, $1974 per year for total health services costs (95% CI, $848-$3171), and $2475 for health services plus time-in-treatment costs (95% CI, $880-$4138). Including total health services and time-in-treatment costs, estimated incremental cost per depression-free day was $51.84 (95% CI, $17.37-$108.47). CONCLUSIONS: Among high utilizers of medical care, systematic identification and treatment of depression produce significant and sustained improvements in clinical outcomes as well as significant increases in health services costs.

Somatization and psychiatric disorder in the NIMH Epidemiologic Catchment Area study.

OBJECTIVE: Somatization has often been viewed as a defense against awareness of emotional distress or as a masked version of depression. This report examines whether community residents with high levels of functional somatic symptoms also report overt psychological distress and whether somatization is associated with any specific psychiatric disorder. METHOD: Analyses used data from the community sample of the National Institute of Mental Health Epidemiologic Catchment Area (ECA) study, a population-based survey of psychiatric morbidity among more than 18,000 residents of five U.S. communities. RESULTS: Increasing number of somatization symptoms was strongly associated with overt expression of psychological distress and psychiatric symptoms. Among ECA respondents with five or more current functional somatic symptoms, 63% reported current psychological symptoms and 50% met criteria for a current psychiatric diagnosis (compared to 7% and 6%, respectively, among those with no current somatization symptoms). Somatization symptoms showed strongest associations with anxiety and depressive symptoms, intermediate association with symptoms of psychotic disorders, and weakest associations with symptoms of substance abuse and antisocial personality. CONCLUSIONS: ECA study respondents with high levels of somatization symptoms typically reported overt psychological distress, especially anxiety and depression. Patterns of response do not support a dissociation between physical and emotional symptoms. Functional somatic symptoms appear to be common expressions of distress instead of defenses against awareness.

Prevalence, burden, and treatment of insomnia in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: The prevalence, burden, and management of insomnia among primary care patients were evaluated. METHOD: Consecutive patients aged 18 to 65 years in primary care clinics of a staff-model health maintenance organization (N = 1,962) were screened with the 12-item General Health Questionnaire. A stratified random sample (N = 373) completed face-to-face diagnostic assessments including the Composite International Diagnostic Interview, a brief self-rated disability questionnaire (Brief Disability Questionnaire), and the interviewer-rated Social Disability Schedule. A telephone follow-up survey was completed 3 months later. Use of psychotropic drugs, use of mental health services, and direct health care costs were assessed by using the health plan's automated data systems. RESULTS: Approximately 10% of the primary care patients reported major current insomnia (e.g., taking at least 2 hours to fall asleep nearly every night). Current insomnia was associated with significantly greater functional impairment (according to both Brief Disability Questionnaire and Social Disability Schedule), more days of disability due to health problems, and greater general medical service utilization. While insomnia was associated with depressive disorder and chronic medical illness, adjustment for these factors only partially accounted for the association of insomnia with disability and with health care utilization. Of the patients with current insomnia, 28% received any psychotropic drug; 14% received benzodiazepines and 19% received antidepressants. CONCLUSIONS: Insomnia among primary care patients is associated with greater functional impairment, lost productivity, and excess health care utilization.

Predictors of outpatient mental health utilization by primary care patients in a health maintenance organization.

OBJECTIVE: The authors examined the volume and predictors of outpatient mental health utilization among primary care patients in a large staff-model health maintenance organization (HMO). METHOD: Consecutive primary care patients (N = 1,810) were screened by using the 12-item General Health Questionnaire, and a stratified random sample (N = 373) completed the 28-item General Health Questionnaire and Composite International Diagnostic Interview. Telephone interviews and computerized records were used to examine use of mental health services inside and outside the HMO over the following 3 months. RESULTS: Over 3 months, 6.7% of the screened patients used mental health services within the HMO. Utilization increased with higher General Health Questionnaire score (2.9% among those scoring 0, 22.3% among those scoring 8 or more) and decreased with higher out-of-pocket cost for mental health visits (7.5% for those with no change, 3.3% for those paying $30/visit). Among the interviewed subjects, 5.1% used mental health services within the HMO (mean = 2.92 visits) and 8.9% used outside mental health services (mean = 8.86 visits). Use of outside services was more strongly related to sociodemographic factors, and use of inside services was more related to severity of psychological disorder. CONCLUSIONS: Among these subjects, use of mental health care was high and services purchased outside the HMO exceeded those inside the HMO. Increasing copayment levels progressively reduced demand without respect to severity of illness. Attempts to control outpatient mental health costs must address equity and clinical need.

Occurrence, recognition, and outcome of psychological disorders in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: The authors' goal was to cross-validate the earlier finding of the Groningen Primary Care Study that recognition of psychological disorders was associated with better patient outcomes. METHOD: The 12-item General Health Questionnaire was used to screen 1,271 consecutive primary care patients. A stratified sample of 340 of these patients participated in the second-stage baseline series of interviews, which included the Composite International Diagnostic Interview, the occupational role section of the Social Disability Schedule, the 28-item General Health Questionnaire, and the SCL-90. Three months later 209 of the patients completed the 28-item General Health Questionnaire and the SCL-90, and 12 months later 213 of the patients completed the second-stage baseline series of interviews. The study was carried out in six primary care practices (11 general practitioners) in the northern part of The Netherlands. RESULTS: Recognition of psychological disorders was associated with higher initial severity of psychopathology and occupational disability and with a psychological reason for the medical encounter. Recognition rates were higher for anxiety than for depression. Patients whose psychological disorders were recognized did not have better outcomes than those whose psychological disorders were not recognized. CONCLUSIONS: Recognition of psychological disorders was not associated with better outcome. Recognition is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for delivery of treatment according to clinical guidelines. Increasing recognition is likely to improve outcomes only if general practitioners have the skills and resources to deliver adequate interventions.

Large medical databases, population-based research, and patient confidentiality.

OBJECTIVE: This article is a discussion of the use of large clinical databases in population-based research on psychiatric disorders. METHOD: The authors review uses of large clinical databases in research on the etiology, impact, and treatment of psychiatric disorders. They also describe existing privacy safeguards applicable to use of medical records data in research. RESULTS: The growth of large medical databases has prompted increasing concern about the confidentiality of patient records. Efforts to restrict access to computerized medical data, however, may preclude use of such data in important and legitimate research. Prior research using large medical databases has made important contributions across a broad range of topics, including epidemiology, genetics, treatment effectiveness, and health policy. Continued population-based research will be essential in order to preserve the accessibility and quality of treatment for people with psychiatric disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Public domain research should be distinguished from proprietary or commercial uses of health information, and existing privacy safeguards should be vigorously applied. In our efforts to protect patient privacy, however, we should take care not to endorse or reinforce prejudices against psychiatric treatment and people who suffer from psychiatric disorders. Neither should we ignore important opportunities to improve quality of care and influence public policy through population-based research.

Allergic to life: psychological factors in environmental illness.

Environmental illness is an increasingly frequent and medically unexplained syndrome of "allergy" to common environmental agents. A recent outbreak of chemical-induced illness allowed study of psychological factors in environmental illness. Thirty-seven symptomatic plastics workers completed structured diagnostic interviews and self-report measures of somatization and psychopathology. The 13 subjects who developed environmental illness scored higher on all measures than those who did not. The greatest differences were in prior history of anxiety or depressive disorder (54% versus 4%) and number of medically unexplained physical symptoms before exposure (6.2 versus 2.9). These findings suggest that psychological vulnerability strongly influences chemical sensitivity following chemical exposure.

Somatization in cross-cultural perspective: a World Health Organization study in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the phenomenon of somatization in different cultures by determining its frequency and correlates in primary care settings in 14 countries. METHOD: Consecutive primary care patients (N = 25,916) were screened with the 12-item General Health questionnaire, and a stratified sample (N = 5,438) was interviewed with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview. Interviewed patients were also assessed for physical disease burden, self-rated overall health, physician-rated physical health status, number of disability days, and interviewer-rated occupational role functioning. The authors determined center-specific associations with the use of logistic regression analyses in which confounding variables were controlled. RESULTS: ICD-10 defined somatization disorder was relatively uncommon in most primary care settings. A less restrictively defined form was more common. Symptom rates were much higher in South American sites. There was a modest association with low education. Otherwise, frequency of unexplained somatic symptoms did not clearly vary according to geography or level of economic development. Somatizing patients were at elevated risk for self-reported disease burden, negative perception of their health, and comorbid depression and generalized anxiety disorder. Somatization was also commonly associated with disability. Cultures did not differ markedly in the pattern of these associated features. CONCLUSION: Somatization is a common problem in primary care across cultures and is associated with significant problems and disability.

Impact of visit copayments on outpatient mental health utilization by members of a health maintenance organization.

OBJECTIVE: The authors examined the impact of increasing cost sharing on use of outpatient mental health services. METHOD: A quasi-experimental design was used to study outpatient utilization by members of a health maintenance organization (HMO) who were subject to increasing copayments for mental health visits (state government employees and dependents). Their outpatient mental health utilization was compared with that of similar HMO members who were not subject to cost sharing (federal government employees and dependents). Analyses compared both likelihood of any service use and number of visits per year among service users. RESULTS: Institution of $20/visit copayments was associated with a 16% decrease in likelihood of service use but no change in visit rate among service users. A subsequent copayment increase to $30/visit resulted in no significant change in likelihood of use but was associated with a 9% decrease in visits per year among those using services. The impact of the first copayment change on likelihood of using services did not vary according to level of clinical need (as measured by prior service use and psychotropic drug use). CONCLUSIONS: In this staff-model HMO, modest visit copayments significantly reduced initial access to mental health treatment and had a smaller effect on treatment intensity. Copayments restricted access regardless of clinical need. Designers of mental health benefits must consider the impact of copayments on those with the greatest need for treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of a collaborative care program for primary care patients with persistent depression.

OBJECTIVE: The authors evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness of stepped collaborative care for patients with persistent depressive symptoms after usual primary care management. METHOD: Primary care patients initiating antidepressant treatment completed a standardized telephone assessment 6-8 weeks after the initial prescription. Those with persistent major depression or significant subthreshold depressive symptoms were randomly assigned to continued usual care or collaborative care. The collaborative care included systematic patient education, an initial visit with a consulting psychiatrist, 2-4 months of shared care by the psychiatrist and primary care physician, and monitoring of follow-up visits and adherence to medication regimen. Clinical outcomes were assessed through blinded telephone assessments at 1, 3, and 6 months. Health services utilization and costs were assessed through health plan claims and accounting data. RESULTS: Patients receiving collaborative care experienced a mean of 16.7 additional depression-free days over 6 months. The mean incremental cost of depression treatment in this program was $357. The additional cost was attributable to greater expenditures for antidepressant prescriptions and outpatient visits. No offsetting decrease in use of other health services was observed. The incremental cost-effectiveness was $21.44 per depression-free day. CONCLUSIONS: A stepped collaborative care program for depressed primary care patients led to substantial increases in treatment effectiveness and moderate increases in costs. These findings are consistent with those of other randomized trials. Improving outcomes of depression treatment in primary care requires investment of additional resources, but the return on this investment is comparable to that of many other widely accepted medical interventions.

Can enhanced acute-phase treatment of depression improve long-term outcomes? A report of randomized trials in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: The authors' goal was to determine whether improved outcomes from enhanced acute-phase (3-month) treatment for depression in primary care persisted. METHOD: They conducted a 19-month follow-up assessment of 156 patients with major depression in the Collaborative Care intervention trials, which had found greater improvements in treatment adherence and depressive symptoms at 4 and 7 months for patients given enhanced acute-phase treatment than for patients given routine treatment in a primary care setting. Sixty-three of the 116 patients who completed the follow-up assessment had received enhanced treatment, and 53 had received routine treatment in primary care. The Inventory for Depressive Symptomatology and the Hopkins Symptom Checklist were used to measure depressive symptoms. Automated pharmacy data and self-reports were used to assess adherence to and adequacy of pharmacotherapy. RESULTS: At 19 months, the patients who had received enhanced acute-phase treatment did not differ from those who had received routine primary care treatment in clinical outcomes or quality of pharmacotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Even though enhanced acute-phase treatment of depression in primary care resulted in better treatment adherence and better clinical outcomes at 4 and 7 months, these improvements failed to persist over the following year. Continued enhancement of depression treatment may be needed to ensure better long-term results.

A cross-national study of the course of persistent pain in primary care.

Data from the World Health Organization's study of psychological problems in general health care were used to examine the course of persistent pain syndromes among primary care patients. Across 15 sites in 14 countries, 3197 randomly selected primary care patients completed baseline and 12-month follow-up assessments of pain, other somatic symptoms, and anxiety and depressive disorders (the Composite International Diagnostic Interview), and an assessment of occupational role disability (the Social Disability Schedule). Of patients with a persistent pain condition at baseline, 49% had not recovered 12 months later. The probability of non-recovery varied significantly across study centers and was significantly associated with the number of pain sites at baseline. After adjustment for age, sex, and study center, baseline anxiety or depressive disorder did not predict non-recovery of persistent pain. Among those without a persistent pain disorder at baseline, the rate of onset was 8.8% with a significant variability in risk across centers. The baseline characteristics predicting the onset of persistent pain disorder were psychological disorder, poor self-rated health, and occupational role disability. A persistent pain disorder at baseline predicted the onset of a psychological disorder to the same degree that a baseline psychological disorder predicted the subsequent onset of persistent pain. Persistent pain conditions are common among primary care patients, and the probability of resolution over 12 months is approximately 50%. We found a strong and symmetrical relationship between persistent pain and psychological disorder. Impairment of daily activities appears to be a central component of that relationship.

Can depression be managed appropriately in primary care?

This review considers the necessary conditions for appropriate management of depression in primary care. While discussion of primary care management has often focused on the recognition of depression, recognition alone is not sufficient. Recent research demonstrates that primary care management of depression frequently fails to meet recommended standards for intensity of treatment and follow-up. Several recent randomized trials show that effective treatment of depression in primary care is possible but will require significant changes in current practice. Prerequisites for more effective management of depression in primary care include appropriate patient education, systematic monitoring of care processes and outcomes, and easy access to the full range of psychiatric consultation services.