1
|
Kendrick T, Dowrick C, Lewis G, Moore M, Leydon GM, Geraghty AW, Griffiths G, Zhu S, Yao GL, May C, Gabbay M, Dewar-Haggart R, Williams S, Bui L, Thompson N, Bridewell L, Trapasso E, Patel T, McCarthy M, Khan N, Page H, Corcoran E, Hahn JS, Bird M, Logan MX, Ching BCF, Tiwari R, Hunt A, Stuart B. Patient-reported outcome measures for monitoring primary care patients with depression: the PROMDEP cluster RCT and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2024; 28:1-95. [PMID: 38551155 PMCID: PMC11017630 DOI: 10.3310/plrq4216] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/02/2024] Open
Abstract
Background Guidelines on the management of depression recommend that practitioners use patient-reported outcome measures for the follow-up monitoring of symptoms, but there is a lack of evidence of benefit in terms of patient outcomes. Objective To test using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 questionnaire as a patient-reported outcome measure for monitoring depression, training practitioners in interpreting scores and giving patients feedback. Design Parallel-group, cluster-randomised superiority trial; 1 : 1 allocation to intervention and control. Setting UK primary care (141 group general practices in England and Wales). Inclusion criteria Patients aged ≥ 18 years with a new episode of depressive disorder or symptoms, recruited mainly through medical record searches, plus opportunistically in consultations. Exclusions Current depression treatment, dementia, psychosis, substance misuse and risk of suicide. Intervention Administration of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 questionnaire with patient feedback soon after diagnosis, and at follow-up 10-35 days later, compared with usual care. Primary outcome Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, symptom scores at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, scores at 26 weeks; antidepressant drug treatment and mental health service contacts; social functioning (Work and Social Adjustment Scale) and quality of life (EuroQol 5-Dimension, five-level) at 12 and 26 weeks; service use over 26 weeks to calculate NHS costs; patient satisfaction at 26 weeks (Medical Informant Satisfaction Scale); and adverse events. Sample size The original target sample of 676 patients recruited was reduced to 554 due to finding a significant correlation between baseline and follow-up values for the primary outcome measure. Randomisation Remote computerised randomisation with minimisation by recruiting university, small/large practice and urban/rural location. Blinding Blinding of participants was impossible given the open cluster design, but self-report outcome measures prevented observer bias. Analysis was blind to allocation. Analysis Linear mixed models were used, adjusted for baseline depression, baseline anxiety, sociodemographic factors, and clustering including practice as random effect. Quality of life and costs were analysed over 26 weeks. Qualitative interviews Practitioner and patient interviews were conducted to reflect on trial processes and use of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 using the Normalization Process Theory framework. Results Three hundred and two patients were recruited in intervention arm practices and 227 patients were recruited in control practices. Primary outcome data were collected for 252 (83.4%) and 195 (85.9%), respectively. No significant difference in Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, score was found at 12 weeks (adjusted mean difference -0.46, 95% confidence interval -2.16 to 1.26). Nor were significant differences found in Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd Edition, score at 26 weeks, social functioning, patient satisfaction or adverse events. EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, quality-of-life scores favoured the intervention arm at 26 weeks (adjusted mean difference 0.053, 95% confidence interval 0.013 to 0.093). However, quality-adjusted life-years over 26 weeks were not significantly greater (difference 0.0013, 95% confidence interval -0.0157 to 0.0182). Costs were lower in the intervention arm but, again, not significantly (-£163, 95% confidence interval -£349 to £28). Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses, therefore, suggested that the intervention was dominant over usual care, but with considerable uncertainty around the point estimates. Patients valued using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 to compare scores at baseline and follow-up, whereas practitioner views were more mixed, with some considering it too time-consuming. Conclusions We found no evidence of improved depression management or outcome at 12 weeks from using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, but patients' quality of life was better at 26 weeks, perhaps because feedback of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores increased their awareness of improvement in their depression and reduced their anxiety. Further research in primary care should evaluate patient-reported outcome measures including anxiety symptoms, administered remotely, with algorithms delivering clear recommendations for changes in treatment. Study registration This study is registered as IRAS250225 and ISRCTN17299295. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/42/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 17. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tony Kendrick
- School of Primary Care, Population Health and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Christopher Dowrick
- Department of Primary Care and Mental Health, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Glyn Lewis
- Division of Psychiatry, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Michael Moore
- School of Primary Care, Population Health and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Geraldine M Leydon
- School of Primary Care, Population Health and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Adam Wa Geraghty
- School of Primary Care, Population Health and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Gareth Griffiths
- Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Shihua Zhu
- School of Primary Care, Population Health and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Guiqing Lily Yao
- Leicester Clinical Trials Unit, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Carl May
- Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Mark Gabbay
- Department of Primary Care and Mental Health, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Rachel Dewar-Haggart
- School of Primary Care, Population Health and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Samantha Williams
- School of Primary Care, Population Health and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Lien Bui
- School of Primary Care, Population Health and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Natalie Thompson
- School of Primary Care, Population Health and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Lauren Bridewell
- School of Primary Care, Population Health and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Emilia Trapasso
- Department of Primary Care and Mental Health, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Tasneem Patel
- Department of Primary Care and Mental Health, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Molly McCarthy
- Department of Primary Care and Mental Health, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Naila Khan
- Department of Primary Care and Mental Health, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Helen Page
- Department of Primary Care and Mental Health, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Emma Corcoran
- Division of Psychiatry, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Jane Sungmin Hahn
- Division of Psychiatry, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Molly Bird
- Division of Psychiatry, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Mekeda X Logan
- Division of Psychiatry, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Brian Chi Fung Ching
- Division of Psychiatry, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Riya Tiwari
- School of Primary Care, Population Health and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Anna Hunt
- School of Primary Care, Population Health and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Beth Stuart
- Centre for Evaluation and Methods, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kendrick T, Dowrick C, Lewis G, Moore M, Leydon G, Geraghty AWA, Griffiths G, Zhu S, Yao G, May C, Gabbay M, Dewar-Haggart R, Williams S, Bui L, Thompson N, Bridewell L, Trapasso E, Patel T, McCarthy M, Khan N, Page H, Corcoran E, Hahn JS, Bird M, Logan MX, Ching BCF, Tiwari R, Hunt A, Stuart B. Depression follow-up monitoring with the PHQ-9: open cluster-randomised controlled trial. Br J Gen Pract 2024:BJGP.2023.0539. [PMID: 38408790 DOI: 10.3399/bjgp.2023.0539] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/17/2023] [Accepted: 02/19/2024] [Indexed: 02/28/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Outcome monitoring of depression is recommended but lacks evidence of patient benefit in primary care. AIM To test monitoring depression using the PHQ-9 questionnaire with patient feedback. DESIGN AND SETTING Open cluster-randomised controlled trial in 141 group practices. METHOD Adults with new depressive episodes were recruited through records searches and opportunistically. EXCLUSION CRITERIA dementia, psychosis, substance misuse, suicide risk. The PHQ-9 questionnaire was to be administered soon after diagnosis, and 10-35 days later. PRIMARY OUTCOME Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) score at 12 weeks. SECONDARY OUTCOMES BDI-II at 26 weeks; Work and Social Adjustment Scale and EuroQol EQ-5D-5L quality of life at 12 and 26 weeks; antidepressant treatment, mental health service use, adverse events, and Medical Informant Satisfaction Scale over 26 weeks. RESULTS 302 intervention arm patients were recruited and 227 controls. At 12 weeks 252 (83.4%) and 195 (85.9%) were followed-up respectively. Only 41% of intervention arm patients had a GP follow-up PHQ-9 recorded. There was no significant difference in BDI-II score at 12 weeks (mean difference -0.46; 95% CI -2.16,1.26), adjusted for baseline depression, baseline anxiety, sociodemographic factors, and clustering by practice). EQ-5D-5L quality of life scores were higher in the intervention arm at 26 weeks (adjusted mean difference 0.053; 95% CI 0.093,0.013). A clinically significant difference in depression at 26 weeks could not be ruled out. No significant differences were found in social functioning, adverse events, or satisfaction. In a per-protocol analysis, antidepressant use and mental health contacts were significantly greater in intervention arm patients with a recorded follow-up PHQ-9. CONCLUSIONS No evidence was found of improved depression outcome at 12 weeks from monitoring. The findings of possible benefits over 26 weeks warrant replication, investigating possible mechanisms, preferably with automated delivery of monitoring and more instructive feedback.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Glyn Lewis
- University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Michael Moore
- University of Southampton, Primary Care and Population Sciences, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - Geraldine Leydon
- University of Southampton, Primary Care and Population Sciences, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - Adam W A Geraghty
- University of Southampton, Primary Care and Population Sciences, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - Gareth Griffiths
- University of Southampton Faculty of Medicine, CTU, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - Shihua Zhu
- University of Southampton Faculty of Medicine, CTU, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - Guiqing Yao
- University of Leicester, Department of Health Sciences, Leicester, United Kingdom
| | - Carl May
- London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
| | - Mark Gabbay
- University of Liverpool, Institute of Population Health Sciences, Liverpool, United Kingdom
| | - Rachel Dewar-Haggart
- University of Southampton, Primary Care and Population Sciences, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - Samantha Williams
- University of Southampton, Primary Care and Population Sciences, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - Lien Bui
- University of Southampton, Primary Care and Population Sciences, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - Natalie Thompson
- University of Southampton, Primary Care and Population Sciences, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - Lauren Bridewell
- University of Southampton, Primary Care and Population Sciences, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | | | | | | | - Naila Khan
- University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
| | - Helen Page
- University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
| | | | | | - Molly Bird
- University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | | | | | - Riya Tiwari
- University of Southampton, Primary Care and Population Sciences, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - Anna Hunt
- Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, United Kingdom
| | - Beth Stuart
- Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Trapasso E, Knowles Z, Boddy L, Newson L, Sayers J, Austin C. Exploring Gender Differences within Forest Schools as a Physical Activity Intervention. Children (Basel) 2018; 5:children5100138. [PMID: 30261652 PMCID: PMC6211073 DOI: 10.3390/children5100138] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/07/2018] [Revised: 09/20/2018] [Accepted: 09/20/2018] [Indexed: 01/26/2023]
Abstract
This study investigated whether children engaged in more physical activity (PA) on school days that included Forest School (FS) sessions than a regular school day or a school day with a Physical Education (PE) lesson. How FS sessions influenced children’s general levels of PA and wellbeing was also explored across gender. A mixed-methods study followed a sample of 59 child participants aged 7 to 9 years old, from four primary schools, whilst taking part in twelve weekly FS sessions. Measures included the PA Questionnaire for Older Children and accelerometry data together with an individual Write and Draw task to inform focus groups. Children had significantly greater levels of light PA on a FS day and a PE school day compared to a regular school day and children reported feeling both happier and relaxed as a consequence of the intervention. From the qualitative data, boys and girls reported different likes of the FS interventions, whereas their dislikes of FS were comparable. Findings from this research provide evidence for such outdoor, nature-based learning within the school curriculum contributing to daily PA in children.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emilia Trapasso
- Health Services Research, Institute of Psychology, Health and Society, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L3 5DA, UK.
| | - Zoe Knowles
- Physical Activity Exchange, Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L3 2AT, UK.
| | - Lynne Boddy
- Physical Activity Exchange, Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L3 2AT, UK.
| | - Lisa Newson
- Natural Sciences and Psychology, Research Centre for Brain and Behaviour, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L3 5AF, UK.
| | - Jo Sayers
- Community Development, The Mersey Forest Team, Risley Moss, Ordnance Avenue, Birchwood, Warrington WA3 6QX, UK.
| | - Clare Austin
- Physical Activity Exchange, Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L3 2AT, UK.
| |
Collapse
|