Umeå University's logo

BACKGROUND: The Contactus program for depressed patients in primary care, consists of six lectures about depression, each followed by a group discussion. The aim of this study was to investigate if Contactus can improve treatment outcome in comparison to a control group. METHODS: Forty-six primary care centres in Sweden, each randomly allocated either to the Contactus group or to the control group, included depressed patients, 205 in the Contactus group and 114 in the control group. Besides regular treatment of depression, the Contactus group participated in the educational program. At start and after 6 weeks, patients filled in a questionnaire and the self-reports: HADS (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and GAF-self (Global Assessment of Functioning). RESULTS: After 6 weeks, clinically depressed patients (HAD-depression score >10) had a mean improvement in HAD-D of 4.6 in Contactus vs. 3.0 in controls (p=0.02), and 72% vs. 47% considered themselves to feel better (p=0.01). Increase in GAF score was 11.8 vs. 5.8 (p=0.04), respectively. According to HADS, 55% in Contactus were responders vs. 29% among controls (p=0.006), and 42% vs. 21% (p=0.02) were in remission. LIMITATIONS: Only 40% of the patients in Contactus and 35% among controls were clinically depressed according to the HADS (>10 points) at inclusion. CONCLUSIONS: Patient education and group counselling contributes significantly to better improvement among depressed patients. Group treatment is inexpensive and could be implemented in the routine care of depressed patients in primary care.

BACKGROUND: More than half of patients with depression go undetected. Self-rating scales can be useful in screening for depression, and measuring severity and treatment outcome. AIM: This study compares the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) with regard to their psychometric properties, and investigates their agreement at different cut-off scores. METHOD: Swedish primary care patients and psychiatric outpatients (n = 737) who reported symptoms of depression completed the self-rating scales. Data were collected from 2006 to 2007. Analyses with respect to internal consistency, factor analysis, and agreement (Cohen's kappa) at recommended cut-offs were performed. RESULTS: Both scales had high internal consistency (alpha = 0.9) and stable factor structures. Using severity cut-offs, the PHQ-9 (> or =5) diagnosed about 30% more patients than the HADS depression subscale (HADS-D; > or =8). They recognised the same prevalence of mild and moderate depression, but differed in relation to severe depression. When comparing recommended screening cut-offs, HADS-D > or =11 (33.5% of participants) and PHQ-9 > or =10 (65.9%) agreement was low (kappa = 0.35). Using the lower recommended cut-off in the HADS-D (> or =8), agreement with PHQ-9 > or =10 was moderate (kappa = 0.52). The highest agreement (kappa = 0.56) was found comparing HADS-D > or =8 with PHQ-9 > or =12. This also equalised the prevalence of depression found by the scales. CONCLUSION: The HADS and PHQ-9 are both quick and reliable. The HADS has the advantage of evaluating both depression and anxiety, and the PHQ-9 of being strictly based upon the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The agreement between the scales at the best suitable cut-off is moderate, although the identified prevalence was similar. This indicates that the scales do not fully identify the same cases. This difference needs to be further explored.

BACKGROUND: Patients' beliefs about the cause of their depression can affect their help-seeking behavior, treatment preferences, coping strategies and treatment compliance. There are few studies exploring depressed patients' beliefs about the causes and to our knowledge none in a Swedish population. However, previous studies show that the patients more often mention environmental and psychological causes than biological. The aim of this study was to further explore depressed patients' answers to an open-ended question about the etiology of their depression. METHODS: Primary care patients, participating in a study evaluating patient education, were asked an open-ended question about their beliefs about what had caused their depression. Answers were obtained from 303 patients. RESULTS: The analysis of the patients' beliefs emerged into 16 different categories of explanations for depression that could be organized into three larger themes: current life stressors, past life events and constitutional factors. Work-related stress was the most commonly mentioned cause, followed by personality and current family situation. Only 3.6% stated biological reasons. LIMITATIONS: We could only count the frequency of mentioned causes, but no ranking of the importance of these causes. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care patients often gave multi-causal explanations to their depression. Biological explanations were rare. Their beliefs were predominantly current life stressors such as work or family situation and also their own personality. Patients' beliefs about their illness are important in the patient-doctor encounter, when developing new treatment strategies aiming at improved adherence to both psychopharmacological and psychotherapeutic treatments and also in patient education programs.

Background: Depression is common among primary care patients and the usual treatment often consists of antidepressant medication and supportive counselling/follow-ups. Previous studies have shown that patients and professionals have different beliefs about treatment, which in turn can decrease acceptance of the diagnosis, compliance and treatment outcome.

Aims: The purpose of this study was to investigate previously depressed patients’ beliefs about the cause of their improvement. Methods: Depressed primary care patients (n = 184) who considered themselves improved at follow-up answered an open-ended question about what they believed had made them better. Among these 117 patients had, in addition to treatment as usual, participated in an intervention with patient education and group counselling (the Contactus programme), whereas 67 were controls. The groups were comparable at baseline and 82% were on antidepressants. 

Results: In total, the patients mentioned 14 separate improving factors, which could be organized to the larger themes external factors, self-management, passing spontaneously and professional help. The most frequently mentioned factors for improvement were the Contactus programme (53.0%), antidepressants (40.2%) and personal development (27.2%). Few gender and age differences were seen. The controls who mentioned professional help were more likely to have a better outcome. 

Conclusions: The patients were generally positive to professional help such as antidepressants and the Contactus programme. Patient education and group counselling seems to be a valuable supplement to treatment of depressed patients in primary care.