The effectiveness of attached social workers in the management of depressed female patients in general practice

Counselling for mental health and psychosocial problems in primary care

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of mental health and psychosocial problems in primary care is high. Counselling is a potential treatment for these patients, but there is a lack of consensus over the effectiveness of this treatment in primary care.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of counselling for patients with mental health and psychosocial problems in primary care.

SEARCH STRATEGY

To update the review, the following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis (CCDAN) trials registers (to December 2010), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (to May 2011).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of counselling for mental health and psychosocial problems in primary care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted using a standardised data extraction sheet by two reviewers. Trials were rated for quality by two reviewers using Cochrane risk of bias criteria, to assess the extent to which their design and conduct were likely to have prevented systematic error. Continuous measures of outcome were combined using standardised mean differences. An overall effect size was calculated for each outcome with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Continuous data from different measuring instruments were transformed into a standard effect size by dividing mean values by standard deviations. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to test the robustness of the results. Economic analyses were summarised in narrative form. There was no assessment of adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials were included in the review, involving 1384 randomised participants. Studies varied in risk of bias, although two studies were identified as being at high risk of selection bias because of problems with concealment of allocation. All studies were from primary care in the United Kingdom and thus comparability was high. The analysis found significantly greater clinical effectiveness in the counselling group compared with usual care in terms of mental health outcomes in the short-term (standardised mean difference -0.28, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.13, n = 772, 6 trials) but not in the long-term (standardised mean difference -0.09, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.10, n = 475, 4 trials), nor on measures of social function (standardised mean difference -0.09, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.11, n = 386, 3 trials). Levels of satisfaction with counselling were high. There was some evidence that the overall costs of counselling and usual care were similar. There were limited comparisons between counselling and other psychological therapies, medication, or other psychosocial interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Counselling is associated with significantly greater clinical effectiveness in short-term mental health outcomes compared to usual care, but provides no additional advantages in the long-term. Participants were satisfied with counselling. Although some types of health care utilisation may be reduced, counselling does not seem to reduce overall healthcare costs. The generalisability of these findings to settings outside the United Kingdom is unclear.

On-site mental health workers delivering psychological therapy and psychosocial interventions to patients in primary care: effects on the professional practice of primary care providers

BACKGROUND

Mental health problems are common in primary care and mental health workers (MHWs) are increasingly working in this setting delivering psychological therapy and psychosocial interventions to patients. In addition to treating patients directly, the introduction of on-site MHWs represents an organisational change that may lead to changes in the clinical behaviour of primary care providers (PCPs).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of on-site MHWs delivering psychological therapy and psychosocial interventions in primary care on the clinical behaviour of primary care providers (PCPs).

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following sources were searched in 1998: the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CounselLit, NPCRDC skill-mix in primary care bibliography, and reference lists of articles. Additional searches were conducted in February 2007 using the following sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series analyses of MHWs working alongside PCPs in primary care settings. The outcomes included objective measures of PCP behaviours such as consultation rates, prescribing, and referral.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-two studies were included in the review. There was evidence that MHWs caused significant reductions in PCP consultations (standardised mean difference -0.17, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.05), psychotropic prescribing (relative risk 0.67, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.79), prescribing costs (standardised mean difference -0.22, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.07), and rates of mental health referral (relative risk 0.13, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.20) for the patients they were seeing. In controlled before and after studies, the addition of MHWs to a practice did not affect prescribing behaviour towards the wider practice population and there was no consistent pattern to the impact on referrals in the wider patient population.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides some evidence that MHWs working in primary care to deliver psychological therapy and psychosocial interventions cause a significant reduction in PCP behaviours such as consultations, prescribing, and referrals to specialist care. However, the changes are modest in magnitude, inconsistent, do not generalise to the wider patient population, and their clinical or economic significance is unclear.

Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of counselling in primary care

BACKGROUND

Counsellors are prevalent in primary care settings. However, there are concerns about the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the treatments they provide, compared with alternatives such as usual care from the general practitioner, medication or other psychological therapies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of counselling in primary care by reviewing cost and outcome data in randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and controlled patient preference trials of counselling interventions in primary care, for patients with psychological and psychosocial problems considered suitable for counselling.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The original search strategy included electronic searching of databases (including the CCDAN Register of RCTs and CCTs) along with handsearching of a specialist journal. Published and unpublished sources (clinical trials, books, dissertations, agency reports etc.) were searched, and their reference lists scanned to uncover further controlled trials. Contact was made with subject experts and CCDAN members in order to uncover further trials. For the updated review, searches were restricted to those databases judged to be high yield in the first version of the review: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PSYCLIT and CINAHL, the Cochrane Controlled Trials register and the CCDAN trials register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All controlled trials comparing counselling in primary care with other treatments for patients with psychological and psychosocial problems considered suitable for counselling. Trials completed before the end of June 2001 were included in the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted using a standardised data extraction sheet. The relevant data were entered into the Review Manager software. Trials were quality rated, using CCDAN criteria, to assess the extent to which their design and conduct were likely to have prevented systematic error. Continuous measures of outcome were combined using standardised mean differences. An overall effect size was calculated for each outcome with 95% confidence intervals. Continuous data from different measuring instruments were transformed into a standard effect size by dividing mean values by standard deviations. In view of the diversity of counselling services in primary care (the range of treatments, patients and practitioners) tests of heterogeneity were done to assess the feasibility of aggregating measures of outcome from trials. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to test the robustness of the results.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven trials were included in the review. The main analyses showed significantly greater clinical effectiveness in the counselling group compared with 'usual care' in the short-term (standardised mean difference -0.28, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.13, n=772, 6 trials) but not the long-term (standardised mean difference -0.09, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.10, n=475, 4 trials). Levels of satisfaction with counselling were high. Four studies reported similar total costs associated with counselling and usual care over the long-term. However, the economic analyses were likely to be underpowered.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Counselling is associated with modest improvement in short-term outcome compared to 'usual care', but provides no additional advantages in the long-term. Patients are satisfied with counselling, and it may not be associated with increased costs.

Using financial incentives to promote shared mental health care

OBJECTIVES

To consider the most common primary care reimbursement structures, to identify incentives inherent in each, and to discuss how each could be used to encourage a shared-care approach to treating mental disorders at the primary care level.

METHOD

Three major financial reimbursement models--fee-for-service, capitation, and blended payment mechanisms--are examined. Each is considered in terms of its risk-sharing elements and the consequent incentives. We offer several scenarios to illustrate how the shared-care practice model might be encouraged under each financing mechanism.

RESULTS

The current fee-for-service system does not encourage shared care. For wide adoption of the shared-care practice model, there must be a change in the reimbursement system's incentives. While none of the financing mechanisms offers a perfect solution, each has potential. Each, however, must be carefully tailored to its environment.

CONCLUSIONS

Financial considerations are just one aspect to achieving shared care. Nevertheless, in designing a system to encourage collaborative, coordinated care for those suffering from mental illness, decision makers should be wary of creating or maintaining obstacles (financial or otherwise) to provision of accessible, high-quality care.

Systematic review of the effect of on-site mental health professionals on the clinical behaviour of general practitioners

OBJECTIVES

To review the published literature concerning the effects of on-site mental health professionals on general practitioners' management of mental health.

DESIGN

Systematic review of controlled trials.

SETTING

Primary care.

PARTICIPANTS

General practitioners and mental health professionals.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Consultation rates, prescribing of psychotropics, and referrals to secondary care mental health services by general practitioners.

RESULTS

The effect of on-site mental health professionals on consultation rates was inconsistent. Referral to a mental health professional reduced the likelihood of a patient receiving a prescription for psychotropics or being referred to secondary care, although the effects were not consistent. An on-site mental health professional did not alter prescribing and referral behaviour towards patients in the wider practice population.

CONCLUSIONS

The secondary effects of mental health professionals on the clinical behaviour of general practitioners are comparatively modest and inconsistent and seem to be restricted to patients directly under the care of the mental health professional.

A. I. F. Scott & C. P. L. Freeman's "Edinburgh Primary Care Depression Study

"OBJECTIVE--To compare the clinical efficacy, patient satisfaction, and cost of three specialist treatments for depressive illness with routine care by general practitioners in primary care. DESIGN--Prospective, randomised allocation to amitriptyline prescribed by a psychiatrist, cognitive behaviour therapy from a clinical psychologist, counselling and case work by a social worker, or routine care by a general practitioner. SUBJECTS AND SETTING--121 patients aged between 18 and 65 years suffering depressive illness (without psychotic features) meeting the criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition for major depressive episode in 14 primary care practices in southern Edinburgh. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Standard observer rating of depression at outset and after four and 16 weeks. Numbers of patients recovered at four and 16 weeks. Total length and cost of therapist contact. Structured evaluation of treatment by patients at 16 weeks. RESULTS--Marked improvement in depressive symptoms occurred in all treatment groups over 16 weeks. Any clinical advantage of specialist treatments over routine general practitioner care were small, but specialist treatment involved at least four times as much therapist contact and cost at least twice as much as routine general practitioner care. Psychological treatments, especially social work counselling, were most positively evaluated by patients. CONCLUSIONS--The additional costs associated with specialist treatments of new episodes of mild to moderate depressive illness presenting in primary care were not commensurate with their clinical superiority over routine general practitioner care. A proper cost-benefit analysis requires information about the ability of specialist treatment to prevent future episodes of depression.

Depressive disorder in primary care

Since the pioneering study of psychiatric morbidity in primary care by Shepherd et al in 1966, it has become increasingly apparent that a substantial proportion (between 20% and 25%) of patients consulting their GP are suffering from some form of psychiatric disturbance (Goldberg & Blackwell, 1970; Hoeper et al, 1979). The composition of this psychiatric morbidity has been shown to be almost wholly affective in nature and largely mild in degree. In their important review Jenkins & Shepherd (1983) recently summarised the now extensive findings relating to overall minor psychiatric morbidity in primary care. However, recent collaborative studies between psychiatrists and GPs have identified that within this dilute pool of minor disorders, lurks a significant but poorly served population of patients suffering from depressive disorders which are by no means minor in degree. A number of crucial issues regarding this depression in primary care emerge which the present paper aims to review. In particular, how common is it, and how severe? How does it present and what, if any, are its special characteristics? What is the precise relationship between depressive symptoms and depressive illness presenting to the GP and what is the relationship between physical illness and depression? And finally, what is the course and outcome of depression in this setting and what are the indications for and effect of treatment?