English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

There is uncertainty regarding possible benefits of screening for depression in family practice, as well as the most effective treatment approach when depression is identified. Here, we examined whether screening patients for depression in primary care, and then treating them with different modalities, was better than treatment-as-usual (TAU) alone. Screening was carried out for depression using the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), with a score of ≥10 indicating significant depressive symptoms. PHQ-9 scores were given to family physicians prior to patients being seen (except for the Control group). Patients ( n  = 1,489) were randomized to one of four groups. Group #1 were controls ( n  = 432) in which PHQ-9 was administered, but results were not shared. Group #2 was screening followed by TAU ( n  = 426). Group #3 was screening followed by both TAU and the opportunity to use an online cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) treatment program ( n  = 440). Group #4 utilized an evidence-based Stepped-care pathway for depression ( n  = 191, note that this was not available at all clinics). Of the study sample 889 (60%) completed a second PHQ-9 rating at 12 weeks. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline PHQ-9 scores between these groups. Compared to baseline, mean PHQ-9 scores decreased significantly in the depressed patients over 12 weeks, but there were no statistically significant differences between any groups at 12 weeks. Thus, for those who were depressed at baseline Control group (Group #1) scores decreased from 15.3 ± 4.2 to 4.0 ± 2.6 ( p  < 0.001), Screening group (Group #2) scores decreased from 15.5 ± 3.9 to 4.6 ± 3.0 ( p  < 0.001), Online CBT group (Group #3) scores decreased from 15.4 ± 3.8 to 3.4 ± 2.7 ( p  < 0.01), and the Stepped-care pathway group (Group #4) scores decreased from 15.3 ± 3.6 to 5.4 ± 2.8 ( p  < 0.05). In conclusion, these findings from this controlled randomized study do not suggest that using depression screening tools in family practice improves outcomes. They also suggest that much of the depression seen in primary care spontaneously resolves and do not support suggestions that more complex treatment programs or pathways improve depression outcomes in primary care. Replication studies are required due to study limitations.

frontiers in psychiatry

Depression Outcomes in Adults Attending Family Practice Were Not Improved by Screening, Stepped-Care, or Online CBT during a 12-Week Study when Compared to Controls in a Randomized Trial