Panic Disorder in Primary Care

Enhancing panic disorder treatment with mobile-aided case management: an exploratory study based on a 3-year cohort analysis

Background

Individuals with panic disorder frequently face ongoing symptoms, suboptimal treatment adherence, and increased relapse rates. Although mobile health interventions have shown promise in improving treatment outcomes for numerous mental health conditions, their effectiveness, specifically for panic disorder, has yet to be determined.

Objective

This study investigates the effects of a mobile-aided case management program on symptom reduction and quality of care among individuals with panic disorder.

Methods

This 3-year cohort study enrolled 138 participants diagnosed with panic disorder. One hundred and eight participants joined the mobile-aided case management group and 30 in the treatment-as-usual group. Data were collected at baseline, 3-month, 6-month, and 12-month treatment checkpoints using self-report questionnaires, in-depth interviews, direct observation, and medical record analysis.

Results

During the maintenance treatment phase, the mobile-assisted case management group decreased both panic severity (p = 0.008) and state anxiety (p = 0.016) more than the control group at 6 months. Participants who underwent case management experienced enhanced control over panic symptoms, heightened self-awareness, and elevated interpersonal support.

Conclusion

The mobile-aided case management is beneficial in managing panic disorder, especially maintenance treatment.

Anxiety Screening: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Importance

Anxiety is commonly seen in primary care and associated with substantial burden.

Objective

To review the benefits and harms of screening and treatment for anxiety and the accuracy of instruments to detect anxiety among primary care patients.

Data Sources

MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Cochrane library through September 7, 2022; references of existing reviews; ongoing surveillance for relevant literature through November 25, 2022.

Study Selection

English-language original studies and systematic reviews of screening or treatment compared with control conditions and test accuracy studies of a priori-selected screening instruments were included. Two investigators independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles for inclusion. Two investigators independently rated study quality.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

One investigator abstracted data; a second checked accuracy. Meta-analysis results were included from existing systematic reviews where available; meta-analyses were conducted on original research when evidence was sufficient.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Anxiety and depression outcomes; global quality of life and functioning; sensitivity and specificity of screening tools.

Results

Of the 59 publications included, 40 were original studies (N = 275 489) and 19 were systematic reviews (including ≈483 studies [N≈81 507]). Two screening studies found no benefit for screening for anxiety. Among test accuracy studies, only the Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) GAD-2 and GAD-7 screening instruments were evaluated by more than 1 study. Both screening instruments had adequate accuracy for detecting generalized anxiety disorder (eg, across 3 studies the GAD-7 at a cutoff of 10 had a pooled sensitivity of 0.79 [95% CI, 0.69 to 0.94] and specificity of 0.89 [95% CI, 0.83 to 0.94]). Evidence was limited for other instruments and other anxiety disorders. A large body of evidence supported the benefit of treatment for anxiety. For example, psychological interventions were associated with a small pooled standardized mean difference of -0.41 in anxiety symptom severity in primary care patients with anxiety (95% CI, -0.58 to -0.23]; 10 RCTs [n = 2075]; I2 = 40.2%); larger effects were found in general adult populations.

Conclusions and Relevance

Evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions about the benefits or harms of anxiety screening programs. However, clear evidence exists that treatment for anxiety is beneficial, and more limited evidence indicates that some anxiety screening instruments have acceptable accuracy to detect generalized anxiety disorder.

Psychometric evaluation and Rasch analyses of the German Overall Anxiety Severity and Impairment Scale (OASIS-D)

The Overall Anxiety Severity and Impairment Scale (OASIS) is a 5-item self-report measure that captures symptoms of anxiety and associated functional impairments. This study evaluates a German version (OASIS-D) that was administered to a convenience sample of 1398 primary care patients of whom 419 were diagnosed with panic disorder with/without agoraphobia. Psychometric properties were analyzed using classical test theory as well as probabilistic test theory. Factor analyses suggested a unitary (latent) factor structure. The internal consistency was good to excellent. Convergent as well as discriminant validity with other self-report measures was found. A sum score (range 0-20) of ≥ 8 emerged as optimal cut-score for screening purposes. A difference score of ≥ 5 was indicative of reliable individual change. A Rasch analysis of local item independence suggested response dependency between the first two items. Rasch analyses of measurement invariance detected noninvariant subgroups associated with age and gender. Analyses of validity and optimal cut-off score were solely based on self-report measures, which may have introduced method effects. In sum, the findings support the transcultural validity of the OASIS and indicate its applicability to naturalistic primary care settings. Caution is warranted when using the scale to compare groups that differ in age or gender.

Depressive primary care patients' assessment of received collaborative care

The "Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care" (PACIC) is a tool for evaluating outpatient health service for patients with chronic diseases. Our aim was to analyze the association between PACIC scores of primary care patients with depression and patients' or patients' general practitioners' (GPs) characteristics. In a data set including depressive primary care patients (N = 280) the association of patient characteristics (sex, age, depressive symptom severity, suicidal ideation) with PACIC scores were assessed by linear regression models. The association between GPs' characteristics (type, location of practice; age, qualification of practitioner) and PACIC scores was assessed by linear mixed models with individual practices as random effects. Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) scores at 12 months follow up and changes in PHQ-9 scores from baseline to follow up were significantly positive associated with higher PACIC scores (beta = 0.67, 95%-CI [0.02, 1.34]). PACIC scores were not associated with patients' sex (p = 0.473) or age (p = 0.531). GP's age was negatively associated with PACIC scores (p = 0.03). In conclusion, in patients with depression, the PACIC is independent from patients' and GPs' characteristics. The PACIC may be appropriate to assess patient-perspective on depression services in primary care.

Contemporary treatment of anxiety in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes in countries with universal healthcare

BACKGROUND

Anxiety disorders are highly prevalent mental health conditions and are managed predominantly in primary care. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological and pharmacological treatments in countries with universal healthcare, and investigated the influence of treatment provider on the efficacy of psychological treatment.

METHOD

PubMed, Cochrane, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus were searched in April 2017 for controlled studies of evidence-based anxiety treatment in adults in primary care, published in English since 1997. Searches were repeated in April 2020. We synthesised results using a combination of meta-analysis and narrative methods. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects multi-level model to account for intercorrelation between effects contributed different treatment arms of the same study. Moderator variables were explored using meta-regression analyses.

RESULTS

In total, 19 articles (from an initial 2,247) reporting 18 studies were included. Meta-analysis including ten studies (n = 1,308) found a pooled effect size of g = 1.16 (95%CI = 0.63 - 1.69) for psychological treatment compared to waitlist control, and no significant effect compared to care as usual (p = .225). Substantial heterogeneity was present (I2 = 81.25). Specialist treatment produced large effects compared to both waitlist control (g = 1.46, 95%CI = 0.96 - 1.96) and care as usual (g = 0.76, 95%CI = 0.27 - 1.25). Treatment provided by non-specialists was only superior to waitlist control (g = 0.80, 95%CI = 0.31 - 1.28). We identified relatively few studies (n = 4) of medications, which reported small to moderate effects for SSRI/SNRI medications and hydroxyzine. The quality of included studies was variable and most studies had at least "unclear" risk of bias in one or more key domains.

CONCLUSIONS

Psychological treatments for anxiety are effective in primary care and are more effective when provided by a specialist (psychologist or clinical psychologist) than a non-specialist (GP, nurse, trainee). However, non-specialists provide effective treatment compared with no care at all. Limited research into the efficacy of pharmacological treatments in primary care needs to be considered carefully by prescribers TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42018050659.

[Health Assistants Perspectives on Team-Led Program for Patients with Panic Disorder in General Practice - A Qualitative Study]

AIM OF THE STUDY

Investigation of the perspective of medical assistants (MA) regarding their participation in behaviour-therapy oriented interventions in family practice.

METHOD

15 MA (w, 39.5 years old), case managers in a general practitioner supported exercise programme for patients with panic disorder (ICD-10: F41.0), were interviewed using semi-structured interview guidelines on the recruitment and interaction of/with patients, communication of the exercises and implementation in everyday practice. The interviews (n = 14) were documented, transcribed and qualitatively analysed according to Mayring.

RESULTS

MA perceived their contribution to the intervention regarding recruitment and monitoring of patients through telephone contacts as positive.

CONCLUSION

Strengthening the role of MAs' can help to provide targeted support for patients with mental health problems in GP care as part of a low-threshold intervention and relieve the workload on the GP.