Effects of adding early cooperation and a work-place dialogue meeting to primary care management for sick-listed patients with stress-related disorders: CO-WORK-CARE-Stress - a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether intensified cooperation between general practitioner (GP), care manager and rehabilitation coordinator (RC) for patients sick-listed for stress-related mental disorder, combined with a person-centred dialogue meeting with employer, could reduce sick-leave days compared with usual care manager contact.

DESIGN

Pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial, randomisation at primary care centre (PCC) level.

SETTING

PCCs in Region Västra Götaland, Sweden, with care manager organisation.

PARTICIPANTS

Of 30 invited PCCs, 28 (93%) accepted the invitation and recruited 258 patients newly sick-listed due to stress-related mental disorder (n = 142 intervention, n = 116 control PCCs).

INTERVENTION

Cooperation between GP, care manager and rehabilitation coordinator from start of illness notification plus a person-centred dialogue meeting between patient and employer within 3 months. Regular contact with care manager was continued at the control PCCs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

12-months net and gross number of sick-leave days. Secondary outcomes: Symptoms of stress, depression, anxiety; work ability and health related quality of life (EQ-5D) over 12 months.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between intervention and control groups after 12 months: days on sick-leave (12-months net sick-leave days, intervention, mean = 110.7 days (95% confidence interval (CI) 82.6 - 138.8); control, mean = 99.1 days (95% CI 73.9 - 124.3)), stress, depression, or anxiety symptoms, work ability or EQ-5D. There were no significant differences between intervention and control groups concerning proportion on sick-leave after 3, 6, 12 months. At 3 months 64.8% were on sick-leave in intervention group vs 54.3% in control group; 6 months 38% vs 32.8%, and12 months 16.9% vs 15.5%.

CONCLUSION

Increased cooperation at the PCC between GP, care manager and RC for stress-related mental disorder coupled with an early workplace contact in the form of a person-centred dialogue meeting does not reduce days of sick-leave or speed up rehabilitation.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03250026 https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03250026?tab=results#publicationsCO-WORK-CAREFirst Posted: August 15, 2017. Recruitment of PCCs: September 2017. Inclusion of patients from December 2017.

Examining the description of the concept "treatment as usual" for patients with depression, anxiety and stress-related mental disorders in primary health care research - A systematic review

BACKGROUND

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs) within medical research, applied interventions are compared to treatment-as-usual (TAU) as the control condition. The aim of the current study was to examine how the concept of TAU is described when used as control condition in RCTs evaluating treatments for depression, anxiety syndromes, and stress-related mental disorders in primary care.

METHOD

A systematic review of RCTs utilizing TAU as control group in the RCT in accordance with PRISMA standards was conducted. We used one multidisciplinary database (Scopus), one database focused on nursing (Cinahl), and one medical database (PubMed). The searches were conducted in November 2021 and May 2022.

RESULTS

The included 32 studies comprised of 7803 participants. The content of TAU was classified as follows: 1) Basic descriptions of TAU lacking a detailed account as well as reference to local or national guidelines, 2) Moderate description of TAU including reference to national or local guidelines or a detailed description 3) Advanced description of TAU including references to national guidelines and a detailed description containing five key concepts: early assessment, accessibility, psychological treatment, medication, somatic examination. 18 studies had basic, 11 moderate, and 3 advanced descriptions of TAU.

LIMITATIONS

The limitations were that only studies published in English were included.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study provides an assessment tool with three classification levels for TAU. The description of TAU is still insufficient in RCT studies conducted in primary care, which may affect the interpretation of results. In future research a detailed description of TAU is recommended.

Process evaluation of a cluster randomised intervention in Swedish primary care: using care managers in collaborative care to improve care quality for patients with depression

Background

The collaborative care model with a care manager has previously generated beneficial results for patients with depression in terms of decreased burden of depression symptoms. A care manager function has been tested in Sweden in the PRIM-CARE RCT with successful results. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the process of implementing care managers in collaborative care for patients with depression in Swedish primary health care in the PRIM-CARE RCT.

Methods

The study followed UK Medical Research Council guidance for process evaluation.

Field notes from the implementation of the PRIM - CARE RCT were used, as well as data collected from five focus group discussions with General Practitioners (n = 29) and three focus group discussions with care managers (n = 11). Data were analysed with content analysis.

Results

Training sessions, careful preparation and extensive initial support to the care manager and staff at the Primary Care Centres were important ingredients in the implementation. The close access to facilitators, the recurrent peer support meetings, and the weekly newsletter strengthened the care manager function.

Conclusions

A complex intervention adapted to the Swedish primary care context focusing on a care manager function for patients with depression could be performed through a stepwise implementation process. Financial support from the health care regions included in the study helped to reduce the impact of identified barriers. This process evaluation has revealed new and important knowledge for primary care development concerning infrastructure and organization building, knowledge sharing, and facilitating factors and barriers.

Trial registration

NCT02378272 Care Manager – Coordinating Care for Person Centered Management of Depression in Primary Care (PRIM – CARE). Registered March 4 2015. Retrospectively registered.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-019-0998-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effects on work ability, job strain and quality of life of monitoring depression using a self-assessment instrument in recurrent general practitioner consultations: A randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND:

Depression reduces individuals’ function and work ability and is associated with both frequent and long-term sickness absence.

OBJECTIVE:

Investigate if monitoring of depression course using a self-assessment instrument in recurrent general practitioner (GP) consultations leads to improved work ability, decreased job strain, and quality of life among primary care patients.

METHODS:

Primary care patients n = 183, who worked. In addition to regular treatment (control group), intervention patients received evaluation and monitoring and used the MADRS-S depression scale during GP visit at baseline and at visits 4, 8, and 12 weeks. Work ability, quality of life and job strain were outcome measures.

RESULTS:

Depression symptoms decreased in all patients. Significantly steeper increase of WAI at 3 months in the intervention group. Social support was perceived high in a significantly higher frequency in intervention group compared to control group.

CONCLUSIONS:

Monitoring of depression course using a self-assessment instrument in recurrent GP consultations seems to lead to improved self-assessed work ability and increased high social support, but not to reduced job strain or increased quality of life compared to TAU. Future studies concerning rehabilitative efforts that seek to influence work ability probably also should include more active interventions at the workplace.

Use of a self-rating scale to monitor depression severity in recurrent GP consultations in primary care - does it really make a difference? A randomised controlled study

Background

Little information is available about whether the use of self-assessment instruments in primary care affects depression course and outcome. The purpose was to evaluate whether using a depression self-rating scale in recurrent person-centred GP consultations affected depression severity, quality of life, medication use, and sick leave frequency.

Methods

Patients in the intervention group met their GP regularly at least 4 times during the 3 months intervention. In addition to treatment as usual (TAU), patients completed a self-assessment instrument (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale) on each occasion, and then GPs used the completed instrument as the basis for a person-centred discussion of changes in depression symptoms. The control group received TAU. Frequency of visits in the TAU arm was the result of the GPs’ and patients’ joint assessments of care need in each case.

Depression severity was measured with Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), quality of life with EQ-5D, and psychological well-being with the General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12). Data on sick leave, antidepressant and sedatives use, and care contacts were collected from electronic patient records. All variables were measured at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months. Mean intra-individual changes were compared between the intervention and TAU group.

Results

There were no significant differences between the intervention and control group in depression severity reduction or remission rate, change in quality of life, psychological well-being, sedative prescriptions, or sick leave during the whole 12-month follow-up. However, significantly more patients in the intervention group continued antidepressants until the 6 month follow-up (86/125 vs 78/133, p < 0.05).

Conclusions

When GPs used a depression self-rating scale in recurrent consultations, patients more often continued antidepressant medication according to guidelines, compared to TAU patients. However, reduction of depressive symptoms, remission rate, quality of life, psychological well-being, sedative use, sick leave, and health care use 4-12 months was not significantly different from the TAU group. These findings suggest that frequent use of depression rating scales in person-centred primary care consultations has no further additional effect on patients’ depression or well-being, sick leave, or health care use.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01402206. Registered June 27 2011(retrospectively registered).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-016-0578-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.