Collaborative stepped care for anxiety disorders in primary care: aims and design of a randomized controlled trial

Personalized care planning and shared decision making in collaborative care programs for depression and anxiety disorders: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Collaborative care is an evidence-based approach to improving outcomes for common mental disorders in primary care. Efforts are underway to broadly implement the collaborative care model, yet the extent to which this model promotes person-centered mental health care has been little studied. The aim of this study was to describe practices related to two patient and family engagement strategies-personalized care planning and shared decision making-within collaborative care programs for depression and anxiety disorders in primary care.

METHODS

We conducted an update of a 2012 Cochrane review, which involved searches in Cochrane CCDAN and CINAHL databases, complemented by additional database, trial registry, and cluster searches. We included programs evaluated in a clinical trials targeting adults or youth diagnosed with depressive or anxiety disorders, as well as sibling reports related to these trials. Pairs of reviewers working independently selected the studies and data extraction for engagement strategies was guided by a codebook. We used narrative synthesis to report on findings.

RESULTS

In total, 150 collaborative care programs were analyzed. The synthesis showed that personalized care planning or shared decision making were practiced in fewer than half of programs. Practices related to personalized care planning, and to a lesser extent shared decision making, involved multiple members of the collaborative care team, with care managers playing a pivotal role in supporting patient and family engagement. Opportunities for quality improvement were identified, including fostering greater patient involvement in collaborative goal setting and integrating training and decision aids to promote shared decision making.

CONCLUSION

This review suggests that personalized care planning and shared decision making could be more fully integrated within collaborative care programs for depression and anxiety disorders. Their absence in some programs is a missed opportunity to spread person-centered mental health practices in primary care.

Collaborative care for depression and anxiety disorders: results and lessons learned from the Danish cluster-randomized Collabri trials

BACKGROUND

Meta-analyses suggest that collaborative care (CC) improves symptoms of depression and anxiety. In CC, a care manager collaborates with a general practitioner (GP) to provide evidence-based care. Most CC research is from the US, focusing on depression. As research results may not transfer to other settings, we developed and tested a Danish CC-model (the Collabri-model) for depression, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and social anxiety disorder in general practice.

METHODS

Four cluster-randomized superiority trials evaluated the effects of CC. The overall aim was to explore if CC significantly improved depression and anxiety symptoms compared to treatment-as-usual at 6-months' follow-up. The Collabri-model was founded on a multi-professional collaboration between a team of mental-health specialists (psychiatrists and care managers) and GPs. In collaboration with GPs, care managers provided treatment according to a structured plan, including regular reassessments and follow-up. Treatment modalities (cognitive behavioral therapy, psychoeducation, and medication) were offered based on stepped care algorithms. Face-to-face meetings between GPs and care managers took place regularly, and a psychiatrist provided supervision. The control group received treatment-as-usual. Primary outcomes were symptoms of depression (BDI-II) and anxiety (BAI) at 6-months' follow-up. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated based on 6-months' follow-up.

RESULTS

Despite various attempts to improve inclusion rates, the necessary number of participants was not recruited. Seven hundred thirty-one participants were included: 325 in the depression trial and 406 in the anxiety trials. The Collabri-model was implemented, demonstrating good fidelity to core model elements. In favor of CC, we found a statistically significant difference between depression scores at 6-months' follow-up in the depression trial. The difference was not significant at 15-months' follow-up. The anxiety trials were pooled for data analysis due to inadequate sample sizes. At 6- and 15-months' follow-up, there was a difference in anxiety symptoms favoring CC. These differences were not statistically significant. The ICER was 58,280 Euro per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

At 6 months, a significant difference between groups was found in the depression trial, but not in the pooled anxiety trial. However, these results should be cautiously interpreted as there is a risk of selection bias and lacking statistical power.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02678624 and NCT02678845 . Retrospectively registered on 7 February 2016.

The measurement of collaboration within healthcare settings: a systematic review of measurement properties of instruments

BACKGROUND

There is a growing call by consumers and governments for healthcare to adopt systems and approaches to care to improve patient safety. Collaboration within healthcare settings is an important factor for improving systems of care. By using validated measurement instruments a standardized approach to assessing collaboration is possible, otherwise it is only an assumption that collaboration is occurring in any healthcare setting.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to evaluate and compare measurement properties of instruments that measure collaboration within healthcare settings, specifically those which have been psychometrically tested and validated.

INCLUSION CRITERIA, TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS

Participants could be healthcare professionals, the patient or any non-professional who contributes to a patient's care, for example, family members, chaplains or orderlies. The term participant type means the designation of any one participant; for example 'nurse', 'social worker' or 'administrator'. More than two participant types was mandatory.

TYPES OF INTERVENTION(S)/PHENOMENA OF INTEREST

The focus of this review was the validity of tools used to measure collaboration within healthcare settings.

TYPES OF STUDIES

The types of studies considered for inclusion were validation studies, but quantitative study designs such as randomized controlled trials, controlled trials and case studies were also eligible for inclusion. Studies that focused on Interprofessional Education, were published as an abstract only, contained patient self-reporting only or were not about care delivery were excluded.

OUTCOMES

The outcome of interest was validation and interpretability of the instrument being assessed and included content validity, construct validity and reliability. Interpretability is characterized by statistics such as mean and standard deviation which can be translated to a qualitative meaning.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The search strategy aimed to find both published and unpublished studies. A three-step search strategy was utilized in this review. The databases searched included PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Emerald Fulltext, MD Consult Australia, PsycARTICLES, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, PsycINFO, Informit Health Databases, Scopus, UpToDate and Web of Science. The search for unpublished studies included EThOS (Electronic Thesis Online Service), Index to Theses and ProQuest- Dissertations and Theses.

METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY

The assessment of methodological quality of the included studies was undertaken using the COSMIN checklist which is a validated tool that assesses the process of design and validation of healthcare measurement instruments.

DATA COLLECTION

An Excel spreadsheet version of COSMIN was developed for data collection which included a worksheet for extracting participant characteristics and interpretability data.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Statistical pooling of data was not possible for this review. Therefore, the findings are presented in a narrative form including tables and figures to aid in data presentation. To make a synthesis of the assessments of methodological quality of the different studies, each instrument was rated by accounting for the number of studies performed with an instrument, the appraisal of methodological quality and the consistency of results between studies.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies of 12 instruments were included in the review. The studies were diverse in their theoretical underpinnings, target population/setting and measurement objectives. Measurement objectives included: investigating beliefs, behaviors, attitudes, perceptions and relationships associated with collaboration; measuring collaboration between different levels of care or within a multi-rater/target group; assessing collaboration across teams; or assessing internal participation of both teams and patients.Studies produced validity or interpretability data but none of the studies assessed all validity and reliability properties. However, most of the included studies produced a factor structure or referred to prior factor analysis. A narrative synthesis of the individual study factor structures was generated consisting of nine headings: organizational settings, support structures, purpose and goals; communication; reflection on process; cooperation; coordination; role interdependence and partnership; relationships; newly created professional activities; and professional flexibility.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the many instruments that measure collaboration within healthcare settings, the quality of each instrument varies; instruments are designed for specific populations and purposes, and are validated in various settings. Selecting an instrument requires careful consideration of the qualities of each. Therefore, referring to systematic reviews of measurement properties of instruments may be helpful to clinicians or researchers in instrument selection.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Systematic reviews of measurement properties of instruments are valuable in aiding in instrument selection. This systematic review may be useful in instrument selection for the measurement of collaboration within healthcare settings with a complex mix of participant types. Evaluating collaboration provides important information on the strengths and limitations of different healthcare settings and the opportunities for continuous improvement via any remedial actions initiated.

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH

Development of a tool that can be used to measure collaboration within teams of healthcare professionals and non-professionals is important for practice. The use of different statistical modelling techniques, such as Item Response Theory modelling and the translation of models into Computer Adaptive Tests, may prove useful. Measurement equivalence is an important consideration for future instrument development and validation. Further development of the COSMIN tool should include appraisal for measurement equivalence. Researchers developing and validating measurement tools should consider multi-method research designs.

Integrated mental health care and vocational rehabilitation to improve return to work rates for people on sick leave because of depression and anxiety (the Danish IBBIS trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Depression and anxiety are among the largest contributors to the global burden of disease and have negative effects on both the individual and society. Depression and anxiety are very likely to influence the individual's work ability, and up to 40% of the people on sick leave in Denmark have depression and/or anxiety. There is no clear evidence that treatment alone will provide sufficient support for vocational recovery in this group. Integrated vocational and health care services have shown good effects on return to work in other, similar welfare contexts. The purpose of the IBBIS (Integrated Mental Health Care and Vocational Rehabilitation to Individuals on Sick Leave Due to Anxiety and Depression) interventions is to improve and hasten the process of return to employment for people in Denmark on sick leave because of depression and anxiety.

METHODS/DESIGN

This three-arm, parallel-group, randomized superiority trial has been set up to investigate the effectiveness of the IBBIS mental health care intervention and the integrated IBBIS mental health care and IBBIS vocational rehabilitation intervention for people on sick leave because of depression and/or anxiety in Denmark. The trial has an investigator-initiated multicenter design. A total of 603 patients will be recruited from Danish job centers in 4 municipalities and randomly assigned to one of 3 groups: (1) IBBIS mental health care integrated with IBBIS vocational rehabilitation, (2) IBBIS mental health care and standard vocational rehabilitation, and (3) standard mental health care and standard vocational rehabilitation. The primary outcome is register-based return to work at 12 months. The secondary outcome measures are self-assessed level of depression (Beck Depression Inventory II), anxiety (Beck Anxiety Inventory), stress symptoms (Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire), work and social functioning (Work and Social Adjustment Scale), and register-based recurrent sickness absence.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide new knowledge on vocational recovery, integrated vocational and health care interventions, and prevention of recurrent sickness absence among people with depression and anxiety. If the effect on return to work is different in the intervention groups, this study can contribute to current knowledge on shared care models for health care and vocational rehabilitation services.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02872051 . Retrospectively registered on 15 August 2016.

Integrated mental health care and vocational rehabilitation to improve return to work rates for people on sick leave because of exhaustion disorder, adjustment disorder, and distress (the Danish IBBIS trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Common mental disorders are important contributors to the global burden of disease and cause negative effects on both the individual and society. Stress-related disorders influence the individual's workability and cause early retirement pensions in Denmark. There is no clear evidence that mental health care alone will provide sufficient support for vocational recovery for this group. Integrated vocational and health care services have shown good effects on return to work in other similar welfare contexts. The purpose of the Danish IBBIS (Integreret Behandlings- og BeskæftigelsesIndsats til Sygemeldte) study is to examine the efficacy of (1) a stepped mental health care intervention with individual stress coaching and/or group-based MBSR and (2) an integrated stepped mental health care with individual stress coaching and/or group-based MBSR and vocational rehabilitation intervention for people on sick leave because of exhaustion disorder, adjustment disorder or distress in Denmark.

METHOD/DESIGN

This three-armed, parallel-group, randomized superiority trial is set up to investigate the effectiveness of a stepped mental health care intervention and an integrated mental health care and vocational rehabilitation intervention for people on sick leave because of exhaustion disorder, adjustment disorder or distress in Denmark. The trial has an investigator-initiated multicenter design. Six hundred and three patients will be recruited from Danish vocational rehabilitation centers in four municipalities and randomly assigned into three groups: (1) IBBIS mental health care integrated with IBBIS vocational rehabilitation, (2) IBBIS mental health care and standard vocational rehabilitation, and (3) standard mental health care and standard vocational rehabilitation. The primary outcome is register-based return to work at 12 months. The secondary outcome measures are self-assessed level of depression (BDI), anxiety (BAI), distress symptoms (4DSQ), work- and social functioning (WSAS), and register-based recurrent sickness absence.

DISCUSSION

This study will contribute with knowledge on the consequence of the current organizational separation of health care interventions and vocational rehabilitation regarding the individual's process of returning to work after sick leave because of exhaustion disorder, adjustment disorder or distress. If the effect on return to work, symptom level, and recurrent sick leave is different in the intervention groups, this study can contribute with new knowledge on shared care models and the potential for preventing deterioration in stress symptoms, prolonged sick leave, and recurrent sick leave.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, registration number: NCT02885519 . Retrospectively registered on 15 August 2016). Participants have been included in the IBBIS trial for distress, adjustment disorder and exhaustion disorder since April 2016.

Collaborative care for depression in general practice: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Depression is a common illness with great human costs and a significant burden on the public economy. Previous studies have indicated that collaborative care (CC) has a positive effect on symptoms when provided to people with depression, but CC has not yet been applied in a Danish context. We therefore developed a model for CC (the Collabri model) to treat people with depression in general practice in Denmark. Since systematic identification of patients is an "active ingredient" in CC and some literature suggests case finding as the best alternative to standard detection, the two detection methods are examined as part of the study. The aim is to investigate if treatment according to the Collabri model has an effect on depression symptoms when provided to people with depression in general practice in Denmark, and to examine if case finding is a better method to detect depression in general practice than standard detection.

METHODS/DESIGN

The trial is a cluster-randomised, clinical superiority trial investigating the effect of treatment according to the Collabri model for CC, compared to treatment as usual for 480 participants diagnosed with depression in general practice in the Capital Region of Denmark. The primary outcome is depression symptoms (Beck's Depression Inventory (BDI-II)) after 6 months. Secondary outcomes include depression symptoms (BDI-II) after 15 months, anxiety symptoms (Beck's Anxiety Inventory (BAI)), level of functioning (Global Assessment of Function (GAF)) and psychological stress (Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R)). In addition, case finding (with the recommended screening tool Major Depression Inventory (MDI)) and standard detection of depression is examined in a cluster-randomized controlled design. Here, the primary outcome is the positive predictive value of referral diagnosis.

DISCUSSION

If the Collabri model is shown to be superior to treatment as usual, the study will contribute with important knowledge on how to improve treatment of depression in general practice, with major benefit to patients and society. If case finding is shown to be superior to standard detection, it will be recommended as the detection method in future treatment according to the Collabri model.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT02678845 . Retrospectively registered on 7 February 2016.

What Physical Health Means to Me: Perspectives of People with Mental Illness

There are significant inequalities in physical health and life expectancy between people with and without a mental illness. Understanding perspectives of people with mental illness on personal meanings of physical health is essential to ensuring health services are aligned with consumer understandings, needs, and values. A qualitative exploratory study was undertaken involving focus groups with 31 consumers in The Australian Capital Territory, Australia. Participants were asked: "What does physical health mean to you?" Thematic analysis was applied to interview transcripts. Five themes are discussed, representing different emphases in the meaning of physical health: (1) physical and mental are interconnected, (2) absence of disease, (3) moving the body, (4) struggling for healthy diet, and (5) functioning and participation. Physical pain was a difficulty that arose across these themes. Mental health consumers see physical health as always connected with well-being. Nurses would benefit from been informed by consumer understandings of physical health. In addition, there should be more attention to quality of life measures of people with mental illness as these are more congruent with consumer perspectives on physical health than biomedical measures.

Auricular acupuncture for substance use: a randomized controlled trial of effects on anxiety, sleep, drug use and use of addiction treatment services

BACKGROUND

A common alternative treatment for substance abuse is auricular acupuncture. The aim of the study was to evaluate the short and long-term effect of auricular acupuncture on anxiety, sleep, drug use and addiction treatment utilization in adults with substance abuse.

METHOD

Of the patients included, 280 adults with substance abuse and psychiatric comorbidity, 80 were randomly assigned to auricular acupuncture according to the NADA protocol, 80 to auricular acupuncture according to a local protocol (LP), and 120 to relaxation (controls). The primary outcomes anxiety (Beck Anxiety Inventory; BAI) and insomnia (Insomnia Severity Index; ISI) were measured at baseline and at follow-ups 5 weeks and 3 months after the baseline assessment. Secondary outcomes were drug use and addiction service utilization. Complete datasets regarding BAI/ISI were obtained from 37/34 subjects in the NADA group, 28/28 in the LP group and 36/35 controls. Data were analyzed using Chi-square, Analysis of Variance, Kruskal Wallis, Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance, Eta square (η(2)), and Wilcoxon Signed Ranks tests.

RESULTS

Participants in NADA, LP and control group improved significantly on the ISI and BAI. There was no significant difference in change over time between the three groups in any of the primary (effect size: BAI, η(2) = 0.03, ISI, η(2) = 0.05) or secondary outcomes. Neither of the two acupuncture treatments resulted in differences in sleep, anxiety or drug use from the control group at 5 weeks or 3 months.

CONCLUSION

No evidence was found that acupuncture as delivered in this study is more effective than relaxation for problems with anxiety, sleep or substance use or in reducing the need for further addiction treatment in patients with substance use problems and comorbid psychiatric disorders. The substantial attrition at follow-up is a main limitation of the study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials NCT02604706 (retrospectively registered).

Collaborative care for anxiety disorders in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Studies evaluating collaborative care for anxiety disorders are recently emerging. A systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the effect of collaborative care for adult patients with anxiety disorders in primary care is therefore warranted.

METHODS

A literature search was performed.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Psycinfo, Embase, Cinahl, and the Cochrane library.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials examining the effects of collaborative care for adult primary care patients with an anxiety disorder, compared to care as usual or another intervention. Synthesis methods: Standardized mean differences (SMD) on an anxiety scale closest to twelve months follow-up were calculated and pooled in a random effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 3073 studies found, seven studies were included with a total of 2105 participants. Included studies were of moderate to high quality. Collaborative care was superior to care as usual, with a small effect size (SMD = 0.35 95 % CI 0.14-0.56) for all anxiety disorders combined and a moderate effect size (SMD = 0.59, 95 % CI 0.41-0.78) in a subgroup analysis (five studies) on patients with panic disorder.

CONCLUSIONS

Collaborative care seems to be a promising strategy for improving primary care for anxiety disorders, in particular panic disorder. However, the number of studies is still small and further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness in other anxiety disorders.

An Evidence Roadmap for Implementation of Integrated Behavioral Health under the Affordable Care Act

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) created incentives and opportunities to redesign health care to better address mental and behavioral health needs. The integration of behavioral health and primary care is increasingly viewed as an answer to address such needs, and it is advisable that evidence-based models and interventions be implemented whenever possible with fidelity. At the same time, there are few evidence-based models, especially beyond depression and anxiety, and thus further research and evaluation is needed. Resources being allocated to adoption of models of integrated behavioral health care (IBHC) should include quality improvement, evaluation, and translational research efforts using mixed methodology to enhance the evidence base for IBHC in the context of health care reform. This paper covers six key aspects of the evidence for IBHC, consistent with mental and behavioral health elements of the ACA related to infrastructure, payments, and workforce. The evidence for major IBHC models is summarized, as well as evidence for targeted populations and conditions, education and training, information technology, implementation, and cost and sustainability.

Effectiveness of collaborative stepped care for anxiety disorders in primary care: a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Collaborative stepped care (CSC) may be an appropriate model to provide evidence-based treatment for anxiety disorders in primary care.

METHODS

In a cluster randomised controlled trial, the effectiveness of CSC compared to care as usual (CAU) for adults with panic disorder (PD) or generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) in primary care was evaluated. Thirty-one psychiatric nurses who provided their services to 43 primary care practices in the Netherlands were randomised to deliver CSC (16 psychiatric nurses, 23 practices) or CAU (15 psychiatric nurses, 20 practices). CSC was provided by the psychiatric nurses (care managers) in collaboration with the general practitioner and a consultant psychiatrist. The intervention consisted of 3 steps, namely guided self-help, cognitive behavioural therapy and antidepressants. Anxiety symptoms were measured with the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) at baseline and after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months.

RESULTS

We recruited 180 patients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of PD or GAD, of whom 114 received CSC and 66 received usual primary care. On the BAI, CSC was superior to CAU [difference in gain scores from baseline to 3 months: -5.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.28 to -1.94; 6 months: -4.65, 95% CI -7.93 to -1.38; 9 months: -5.67, 95% CI -8.97 to -2.36; 12 months: -6.84, 95% CI -10.13 to -3.55].

CONCLUSIONS

CSC, with guided self-help as a first step, was more effective than CAU for primary care patients with PD or GAD.

Impairment of work productivity in panic disorder patients

BACKGROUND

Panic disorder (PD) has a critical impact on productivity at the workplace. This study aimed to identify the lost productivity time (LPT) for patients with PD. It also assessed change in LPT for patients with PD after 12 weeks of treatment with Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs), compared with healthy controls.

METHODS

Working patients diagnosed with PD without other major medical or psychiatric illness were enrolled at outpatient psychiatric clinics (N=108). Age and sex-matched healthy controls were recruited through advertisement (N=108). Health and productivity, PD symptoms, and depressive symptoms were assessed using the Korean version of the World Health Organization's Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ), the Panic Disorder Severity Scale (PDSS), and the Hamilton Rating Scales for Depression (HAM-D), respectively at baseline, week 4, and week 12.

RESULTS

At baseline, the PD group showed significantly higher LPT compared to the control group (103.02 vs. 47.28h in the past 4 weeks). After 12 weeks of treatment, the PD group displayed significant clinical improvement as well as improved productivity with a marked reduction in LPT. Among the patients who completed the treatment, LPT due to PD was reduced from 104.38 to 55.15h in the past 4 weeks.

LIMITATIONS

There may be selection bias due to case-control study design.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that, after the treatment, there was significant improvement in clinical symptoms, and that productivity loss due to PD was almost entirely recovered to the level of healthy controls after 12 weeks of psychiatric outpatient treatment.

Media-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy and behavioural therapy (self-help) for anxiety disorders in adults

BACKGROUND

Anxiety disorders are the most common mental health problems. They are chronic and unremitting. Effective treatments are available, but access to services is limited. Media-delivered behavioural and cognitive behavioural interventions (self-help) aim to deliver treatment with less input from professionals compared with traditional therapies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of media-delivered behavioural and cognitive behavioural therapies for anxiety disorders in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

Published and unpublished studies were considered without restriction by language or date. The Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialized Register (CCDANCTR) was searched all years to 1 January 2013. The CCDANCTR includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: The Cochrane Library (all years), EMBASE (1974 to date), MEDLINE (1950 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). Complementary searches were carried out on Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to 23 February 2013) and PsycINFO (1987 to February, Week 2, 2013), together with International trial registries (the trials portal of the World Health Organization (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov). Reference lists from previous meta-analyses and reports of randomised controlled trials were checked, and authors were contacted for unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of media-delivered behavioural or cognitive behavioural therapy in adults with anxiety disorders (other than post-traumatic stress disorder) compared with no intervention (including attention/relaxation controls) or compared with face-to-face therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both review authors independently screened titles and abstracts. Study characteristics and outcomes were extracted in duplicate. Outcomes were combined using random-effects models, and tests for heterogeneity and for small study bias were conducted. We examined subgroup differences by type of disorder, type of intervention provided, type of media, and recruitment methods used.

MAIN RESULTS

One hundred and one studies with 8403 participants were included; 92 studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. These trials compared several types of media-delivered interventions (with varying levels of support) with no treatment and with face-to-face interventions. Inconsistency and risk of bias reduced our confidence in the overall results. For the primary outcome of symptoms of anxiety, moderate-quality evidence showed medium effects compared with no intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 0.80; 72 studies, 4537 participants), and low-quality evidence of small effects favoured face-to-face therapy (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.36 to -0.09; 24 studies, 1360 participants). The intervention was associated with greater response than was seen with no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 2.34, 95% CI 1.81 to 3.03; 21 studies, 1547 participants) and was not significantly inferior to face-to-face therapy in these studies (RR 0.78, 95 % CI 0.56 to 1.09; 10 studies, 575 participants), but the latter comparison included versions of therapies that were not as comprehensive as those provided in routine clinical practice. Evidence suggested benefit for secondary outcome measures (depression, mental-health related disability, quality of life and dropout), but this evidence was of low to moderate quality. Evidence regarding harm was lacking.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Self-help may be useful for people who are not able or are not willing to use other services for people with anxiety disorders; for people who can access it, face-to-face cognitive behavioural therapy is probably clinically superior. Economic analyses were beyond the scope of this review.Important heterogeneity was noted across trials. Recent interventions for specific problems that incorporate clinician support may be more effective than transdiagnostic interventions (i.e. interventions for multiple disorders) provided with no guidance, but these issues are confounded in the available trials.Although many small trials have been conducted, the generalisability of their findings is limited. Most interventions tested are not available to consumers. Self-help has been recommended as the first step in the treatment of some anxiety disorders, but the short-term and long-term effectiveness of media-delivered interventions has not been established. Large, pragmatic trials are needed to evaluate and to maximise the benefits of self-help interventions.

Screening high-risk patients and assisting in diagnosing anxiety in primary care: the Patient Health Questionnaire evaluated

BACKGROUND

Questionnaires may help in detecting and diagnosing anxiety disorders in primary care. However, since utility of these questionnaires in target populations is rarely studied, the Patient Health Questionnaire anxiety modules (PHQ) were evaluated for use as: a) a screener in high-risk patients, and/or b) a case finder for general practitioners (GPs) to assist in diagnosing anxiety disorders.

METHODS

A cross-sectional analysis was performed in 43 primary care practices in the Netherlands. The added value of the PHQ was assessed in two samples: 1) 170 patients at risk of anxiety disorders (or developing them) according to their electronic medical records (high-risk sample); 2) 141 patients identified as a possible 'anxiety case' by a GP (GP-identified sample). All patients completed the PHQ and were interviewed using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric interview to classify DSM-IV anxiety disorders. Psychometric properties were calculated, and a logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the diagnostic value of the PHQ.

RESULTS

Using only the screening questions of the PHQ, the area under the curve was 83% in the high-risk sample. In GP-identified patients the official algorithm showed the best characteristics with an area under the curve of 77%. Positive screening questions significantly increased the odds of an anxiety disorder diagnosis in high-risk patients (odds ratio = 23.4; 95% confidence interval 6.9 to 78.8) as did a positive algorithm in GP-identified patients (odds ratio = 13.9; 95% confidence interval 3.8 to 50.6).

CONCLUSIONS

The PHQ screening questions can be used to screen for anxiety disorders in high-risk primary care patients. In GP-identified patients, the benefit of the PHQ is less evident.

The Autonomic Nervous System Questionnaire and the Brief Patient Health Questionnaire as screening instruments for panic disorder in Finnish primary care

PURPOSE

As panic disorder often remains unrecognized in the health care system, some screening methods have been developed to enhance its recognition. The aim of this study was to test and compare the Autonomic Nervous System Questionnaire (ANS) and the Brief Patient Health Questionnaire (BPHQ) in primary care.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A total sample of 211 primary care outpatients was studied. The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV was the criterion standard for the presence of panic disorder. Indices of diagnostic utility for both screening methods were calculated and compared.

RESULTS

The AUC (area under the ROC curve) was 0.885 for the ANS and 0.877 for the BPHQ. At the optimal cut-off level, the ANS had the sensitivity of 0.88 and specificity of 0.77; the BPHQ had the sensitivity of 0.79 and the specificity of 0.87. There was not any statistically significant difference between the screens.

CONCLUSIONS

Both screening methods can be recommended both for clinical practice and research use. In busy primary care practice, the BPHQ may be more useful, as it can be used together with the depression module of the BPHQ.

Collaborative care for depression and anxiety problems

BACKGROUND

Common mental health problems, such as depression and anxiety, are estimated to affect up to 15% of the UK population at any one time, and health care systems worldwide need to implement interventions to reduce the impact and burden of these conditions. Collaborative care is a complex intervention based on chronic disease management models that may be effective in the management of these common mental health problems.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of collaborative care for patients with depression or anxiety.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases to February 2012: The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group (CCDAN) trials registers (CCDANCTR-References and CCDANCTR-Studies) which include relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from MEDLINE (1950 to present), EMBASE (1974 to present), PsycINFO (1967 to present) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, all years); the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (ICTRP); ClinicalTrials.gov; and CINAHL (to November 2010 only). We screened the reference lists of reports of all included studies and published systematic reviews for reports of additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of collaborative care for participants of all ages with depression or anxiety.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent researchers extracted data using a standardised data extraction sheet. Two independent researchers made 'Risk of bias' assessments using criteria from The Cochrane Collaboration. We combined continuous measures of outcome using standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We combined dichotomous measures using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the results.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seventy-nine RCTs (including 90 relevant comparisons) involving 24,308 participants in the review. Studies varied in terms of risk of bias.The results of primary analyses demonstrated significantly greater improvement in depression outcomes for adults with depression treated with the collaborative care model in the short-term (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.27; RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.43), medium-term (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.15; RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.48), and long-term (SMD -0.35, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.24; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.41). However, these significant benefits were not demonstrated into the very long-term (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27).The results also demonstrated significantly greater improvement in anxiety outcomes for adults with anxiety treated with the collaborative care model in the short-term (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.17; RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.87), medium-term (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.19; RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.69), and long-term (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.06; RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.42). No comparisons examined the effects of the intervention on anxiety outcomes in the very long-term.There was evidence of benefit in secondary outcomes including medication use, mental health quality of life, and patient satisfaction, although there was less evidence of benefit in physical quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Collaborative care is associated with significant improvement in depression and anxiety outcomes compared with usual care, and represents a useful addition to clinical pathways for adult patients with depression and anxiety.

A randomized controlled trial of the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a brief intensified cognitive behavioral therapy and/or pharmacotherapy for mood and anxiety disorders: design and methods

BACKGROUND

Anxiety and mood disorders involve a high disease burden and are associated with high economic costs. A stepped-care approach intervention and abbreviated diagnostic method are assumed to increase effectiveness and efficiency of the mental healthcare and are expected to reduce economic costs.

METHODS

Presented are the rationale, design, and methods of a two-armed randomized controlled trial comparing 'treatment as usual' (TAU) with a brief intensified cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and/or pharmacotherapy. Eligible participants (N=500) of five Dutch outpatient Mental Healthcare Centers are randomly assigned to either TAU or to the experimental condition (brief CBT and/or pharmacotherapy). Data on patients' progress and clinical effectiveness of treatment are assessed at baseline, post-treatment (3 months after baseline), and at 6 and 12 months post-treatment by Routine Outcome Monitoring (ROM). Cost analysis is performed on the obtained data.

DISCUSSION

Since few studies have investigated both the clinical and cost effectiveness of a stepped-care approach intervention and a shortened diagnostic ROM method in both anxiety and/or mood disorders within secondary mental health care, the results of this study might contribute to the improvement of (cost)-effective treatment options and diagnostic methods for these disorders.

Is the Beck Anxiety Inventory a good tool to assess the severity of anxiety? A primary care study in the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA)

Background

Appropriate management of anxiety disorders in primary care requires clinical assessment and monitoring of the severity of the anxiety. This study focuses on the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) as a severity indicator for anxiety in primary care patients with different anxiety disorders (social phobia, panic disorder with or without agoraphobia, agoraphobia or generalized anxiety disorder), depressive disorders or no disorder (controls).

Methods

Participants were 1601 primary care patients participating in the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). Regression analyses were used to compare the mean BAI scores of the different diagnostic groups and to correct for age and gender.

Results

Patients with any anxiety disorder had a significantly higher mean score than the controls. A significantly higher score was found for patients with panic disorder and agoraphobia compared to patients with agoraphobia only or social phobia only. BAI scores in patients with an anxiety disorder with a co-morbid anxiety disorder and in patients with an anxiety disorder with a co-morbid depressive disorder were significantly higher than BAI scores in patients with an anxiety disorder alone or patients with a depressive disorder alone. Depressed and anxious patients did not differ significantly in their mean scores.

Conclusions

The results suggest that the BAI may be used as a severity indicator of anxiety in primary care patients with different anxiety disorders. However, because the instrument seems to reflect the severity of depression as well, it is not a suitable instrument to discriminate between anxiety and depression in a primary care population.

Ten years of integrated care for mental disorders in the Netherlands

Background and problem statement

Integrated care for mental disorders aims to encompass forms of collaboration between different health care settings for the treatment of mental disorders. To this end, it requires integration at several levels, i.e. integration of psychiatry in medicine, of the psychiatric discourse in the medical discourse; of localization of mental health care and general health care facilities; and of reimbursement systems.

Description of policy practice

Steps have been taken in the last decade to meet these requirements, enabling psychiatry to move on towards integrated treatment of mental disorder as such, by development of a collaborative care model that includes structural psychiatric consultation that was found to be applicable and effective in several Dutch health care settings. This collaborative care model is a feasible and effective model for integrated care in several health care settings. The Bio Psycho Social System has been developed as a feasible instrument for assessment in integrated care as well.

Discussion

The discipline of psychiatry has moved from anti-psychiatry in the last century, towards an emancipated medical discipline. This enabled big advances towards integrated care for mental disorder, in collaboration with other medical disciplines, in the last decade.

Conclusion

Now is the time to further expand this concept of care towards other mental disorders, and towards integrated care for medical and mental co-morbidity. Integrated care for mental disorder should be readily available to the patient, according to his/her preference, taking somatic co-morbidity into account, and with a focus on rehabilitation of the patient in his or her social roles.