Impact of symptom remission on outpatient visits in depressed primary care patients treated with collaborative care management and usual care

The clinical effects of continuous nursing intervention combined with chronic disease management center in patients with severe hypertension

The construction and application of chronic disease management centers are increasing. However, the effect of continuing nursing combined with intervention measures provided by chronic disease management centers in patients with severe hypertension is still unclear. To analyze the application effect of continuous nursing intervention combined with chronic disease management center in patients with severe hypertension. 240 patients with severe hypertension were randomly divided into control group (N = 120) and study group (N = 120). The study group adopted the intervention measures of continuous nursing combined with chronic disease management center, while the control group adopted routine nursing. The nursing effects of the 2 groups were compared. After nursing, the short form 36-item health survey, total satisfaction rate and medication compliance rate of the study group were higher than those of the control group (P < .001). Blood pressure, self-rating anxiety scale, and self-rating depression scale scores were lower than those of the control group (P < .05). Continuing nursing combined with the intervention of chronic disease management center can effectively reduce the blood pressure of patients with severe hypertension, and the overall nursing effect is remarkable.

Antidepressant Use and the Risk of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Patients Without Known Cardiovascular Disease: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Aims: Conflicting data exist on whether an association exists between antidepressants and the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in patients with depression. This may be due to the use of various study designs and residual or unmeasured confounding. We aimed to assess the association between antidepressant use and the risk of MACEs while considering various covariates, including severity of depression and the cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk score.

Methods: Patients newly diagnosed with depression with no history of ischemic heart disease and stroke were followed-up from 2009 to 2015. We conducted Cox proportional hazard regression analysis to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for each antidepressant for MACE risk.

Result: We followed-up (median, 4.4 years) 31,830 matched patients with depression (15,915 antidepressant users and 15,915 non-users). In most patients (98.7%), low-dose tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) were related with a significantly increased risk of MACEs [adjusted HR = 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.03–1.40]. Duration response relationship showed a gradually increasing HR from 1.15 (95% CI = 0.98–1.33; <30 days of use) to 1.84 (95% CI = 1.35–2.51; ≥365 days of use) (p for trend <0.01). High Korean atherosclerotic CVD risk score (≥7.5%) or unfavorable lifestyle factors (smoking, alcohol intake, and exercise) were significantly associated with MACEs.

Conclusion: Even at low doses, TCA use was associated with MACEs during primary prevention. Longer duration of TCA use correlated with higher HR. Careful monitoring is needed with TCA use in patients with no known CVD history.

The Effect of Regular Family Appointments on Hope of Hospitalized Depressed Patients: a Randomized Clinical Trial

Introduction: Depression is one of the most common psychological disorders in the world. Many depressed patients are being hospitalized in psychiatric centers every year, which can lead to hopelessness and indifference. Considering the role of family as a support system in caring for depressed patients, the goal of the present study is to assess the effects of regular family appointments on the hope of hospitalized depressed patients.

Methods: This was a randomized clinical trial on 70 hospitalized depressed patients in the Baharan psychiatric hospital of Zahedan. Block Randomization was used to categorize the participants continuously into two groups intervention (n=35) and control groups (n=35). The data collection tools were demographic characteristics questionnaire and Schneider hope scale. The patients in the interventions group received 6 sessions of regular family appointments with first- degree relatives. The control group received freely and without any planning appointments. Hope level was measured and compared before and after the intervention for two groups. The data were analyzed by SPSS using the chi-square test, the independent t-test and the paired t-test.

Results: The results showed that both groups were homogeneous in terms of socio- demographic differences. The hope scores of patients in the intervention group significantly increased compared to those of the control group.

Conclusion: Encouraging family cooperation and using patient's choice in selecting visitors is recommended.

Impact of Collaborative Care on Absenteeism for Depressed Employees Seen in Primary Care Practices: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

The impact of "real world" collaborative care on depression and absenteeism for depressed employees seen in primary care practices using objective employer absence data.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study comparing depressed employees seen in primary care practices who enrolled for a "real world" collaborative care program to practice as usual (PAU) on objective absence days and depression response and remission at 6, and 12-month time periods.

RESULTS

Absence days were more in the collaborative care group compared with the PAU group at 3 and 6 months but at 12 months the difference was no longer statistically significant. Collaborative care led to better response and remission depression scores compared with PAU at 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Collaborative care led to faster improvement in depression symptoms but did not translate to less time away from work.

Impact of rural address and distance from clinic on depression outcomes within a primary care medical home practice

Background

Depression is the second leading cause of death among young adults and a major cause of disability worldwide. Some studies suggest a disparity between rural and urban outcomes for depression. Collaborative Care Management (CCM) is effective in improving recovery from depression, but its effect within rural and urban populations has not been studied.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study of 3870 patients diagnosed with depression in a multi-site primary care practice that provided optional, free CCM was conducted. US Census data classified patients as living in an Urban Area, Urban Cluster, or Rural area and the distance they resided from their primary care clinic was calculated. Baseline demographics, clinical data, and standardized psychiatric assessments were collected. Six month Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ 9) scores were used to judge remission (PHQ9 < 5) or Persistent Depressive Symptoms (PDS) (PHQ9 ≥ 10) in a multivariate model with interaction terms.

Results

Rural patients had improved adjusted odds of remission (AOR = 2.8) and PDS (AOR = 0.36) compared to urban area patients. The natural logarithm transformed distance to primary care clinic was significant for rural patients resulting in a lower odds of remission and increased odds of PDS with increasing distance from clinic. The marginal probability of remission or PDS for rural patients equaled that of urban area patients at a distance of 34 or 40 km respectively. Distance did not have an effect for urban cluster or urban area patients nor did distance interact with CCM.

Conclusion

Residing in a rural area had a beneficial effect on the recovery from depression. However this effect declined with increasing distance from the primary care clinic perhaps related to greater social isolation or difficulty accessing care. This distance effect was not seen for urban area or urban cluster patients. CCM was universally beneficial and did not interact with distance.

Depression Outcomes in Adults Attending Family Practice Were Not Improved by Screening, Stepped-Care, or Online CBT during a 12-Week Study when Compared to Controls in a Randomized Trial

There is uncertainty regarding possible benefits of screening for depression in family practice, as well as the most effective treatment approach when depression is identified. Here, we examined whether screening patients for depression in primary care, and then treating them with different modalities, was better than treatment-as-usual (TAU) alone. Screening was carried out for depression using the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), with a score of ≥10 indicating significant depressive symptoms. PHQ-9 scores were given to family physicians prior to patients being seen (except for the Control group). Patients (n = 1,489) were randomized to one of four groups. Group #1 were controls (n = 432) in which PHQ-9 was administered, but results were not shared. Group #2 was screening followed by TAU (n = 426). Group #3 was screening followed by both TAU and the opportunity to use an online cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) treatment program (n = 440). Group #4 utilized an evidence-based Stepped-care pathway for depression (n = 191, note that this was not available at all clinics). Of the study sample 889 (60%) completed a second PHQ-9 rating at 12 weeks. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline PHQ-9 scores between these groups. Compared to baseline, mean PHQ-9 scores decreased significantly in the depressed patients over 12 weeks, but there were no statistically significant differences between any groups at 12 weeks. Thus, for those who were depressed at baseline Control group (Group #1) scores decreased from 15.3 ± 4.2 to 4.0 ± 2.6 (p < 0.001), Screening group (Group #2) scores decreased from 15.5 ± 3.9 to 4.6 ± 3.0 (p < 0.001), Online CBT group (Group #3) scores decreased from 15.4 ± 3.8 to 3.4 ± 2.7 (p < 0.01), and the Stepped-care pathway group (Group #4) scores decreased from 15.3 ± 3.6 to 5.4 ± 2.8 (p < 0.05). In conclusion, these findings from this controlled randomized study do not suggest that using depression screening tools in family practice improves outcomes. They also suggest that much of the depression seen in primary care spontaneously resolves and do not support suggestions that more complex treatment programs or pathways improve depression outcomes in primary care. Replication studies are required due to study limitations.