Developing an evaluation framework for consumer-centred collaborative care of depression using input from stakeholders

Adapting the Goal Attainment Approach for Major Depressive Disorder

The need for patient-centered care has become a focal point of healthcare improvement initiatives. Shared decision making-in which patients and clinicians communicate about various treatment options and goals and patient input is considered when making treatment decisions-has been associated with improved health and quality of life. A method of treatment evaluation allowing incorporation of patient-specific goals and perspectives is of increasing interest to healthcare providers, payers, and patients. An approach that allows incorporation of shared goal setting is possible via use of an instrument called the Goal Attainment Scale (GAS). This scale provides the structure for measuring progress toward treatment goals set through patient-clinician collaboration. The goal attainment approach has been used as a primary outcomes measure in numerous studies but not in major depressive disorder (MDD). As MDD is a complex, multidimensional disorder affecting each patient differently, the use of GAS methodology is a relevant framework for setting personalized meaningful treatment goals. Initial research into the feasibility of using the GAS in MDD (GAS-D) to measure patient-centric outcomes that may be neglected when more traditional scales are used has been encouraging. The objective of this Commentary is to provide background and rationale for implementation of the GAS-D in clinical practice.Funding Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd., and Lundbeck LLC.

Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

There is increasing recognition that it is good practice to involve stakeholders (meaning patients, the public, health professionals and others) in systematic reviews, but limited evidence about how best to do this. We aimed to document the evidence-base relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews and to use this evidence to describe how stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews.

METHODS

We carried out a scoping review, following a published protocol. We searched multiple electronic databases (2010-2016), using a stepwise searching approach, supplemented with hand searching. Two authors independently screened and discussed the first 500 abstracts and, after clarifying selection criteria, screened a further 500. Agreement on screening decisions was 97%, so screening was done by one reviewer only. Pre-planned data extraction was completed, and the comprehensiveness of the description of methods of involvement judged. Additional data extraction was completed for papers judged to have most comprehensive descriptions. Three stakeholder representatives were co-authors for this systematic review.

RESULTS

We included 291 papers in which stakeholders were involved in a systematic review. Thirty percent involved patients and/or carers. Thirty-two percent were from the USA, 26% from the UK and 10% from Canada. Ten percent (32 reviews) were judged to provide a comprehensive description of methods of involving stakeholders. Sixty-nine percent (22/32) personally invited people to be involved; 22% (7/32) advertised opportunities to the general population. Eighty-one percent (26/32) had between 1 and 20 face-to-face meetings, with 83% of these holding ≤ 4 meetings. Meetings lasted 1 h to ½ day. Nineteen percent (6/32) used a Delphi method, most often involving three electronic rounds. Details of ethical approval were reported by 10/32. Expenses were reported to be paid to people involved in 8/32 systematic reviews.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

We identified a relatively large number (291) of papers reporting stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, but the quality of reporting was generally very poor. Information from a subset of papers judged to provide the best descriptions of stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews provide examples of different ways in which stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. These examples arguably currently provide the best available information to inform and guide decisions around the planning of stakeholder involvement within future systematic reviews. This evidence has been used to develop online learning resources.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

The protocol for this systematic review was published on 21 April 2017. Publication reference: Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, Goodare H, Watts C, Morley R: Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects. Research Involvement and Engagement 2017, 3:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0060-4 .

La gestion de la dépression chez les aînés et leurs aidants naturels : résultats d’un programme de recherche au Québec

La dépression est un problème répandu, sérieux, et souvent chronique chez les aînés, qui sont souvent atteints de maladies physiques chroniques, et affecte de façon négative leurs traitements et leurs soins. Malheureusement, le taux de détection et de suivi adéquat de la dépression est faible dans cette population. Au cours des deux dernières décennies, notre équipe a mené une série d’études pour mieux comprendre et améliorer la gestion de la dépression chez les aînés. Nous présentons une revue narrative et synthèse de 25 articles qui incluent : 4 revues systématiques, 10 études observationnelles, 9 essais d’interventions, et 2 conférences de consensus. Nous proposons en conclusion nos recommandations pour 1) la détection de la dépression dans les soins de santé primaires ; 2) les soins collaboratifs de la dépression ; 3) des interventions d’autogestion de la dépression ; 4) le rôle des aidants naturels dans les interventions d’autogestion de la dépression.