首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>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
【2h】

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

机译:与随机对照中的对照相比在为期12周的研究中通过筛查分步护理或在线CBT并没有改善参加家庭活动的成年人的抑郁结果。

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

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.
机译:在家庭实践中筛查抑郁症的可能益处以及确定抑郁症时最有效的治疗方法尚不确定。在这里,我们检查了在初级保健中筛查患者是否患有抑郁症,然后以不同的方式对其进行治疗是否比仅按常规治疗(TAU)更好。使用9项患者健康问卷(PHQ-9)进行抑郁症筛查,得分≥10表示有明显的抑郁症状。在就诊患者之前将PHQ-9评分提供给家庭医生(对照组除外)。患者(n = 1,489)被随机分为四组之一。第一组是对照组(n = 432),其中使用了PHQ-9,但未共享结果。第2组进行筛选,然后进行TAU(n = 426)。对第3组进行筛查,然后进行TAU和使用在线认知行为疗法(CBT)治疗程序的机会(n = 440)。第4组使用循证的抑郁症阶梯式护理途径(n = 191),但并非在所有诊所都可用。在研究样本中,有889名(60%)在12周内完成了第二次PHQ-9评分。这些组之间的基线PHQ-9评分没有统计学上的显着差异。与基线相比,抑郁症患者在12周内的平均PHQ-9得分显着降低,但是在12周内的任何组之间均无统计学差异。因此,对于那些在基线对照组(组1)中处于抑郁状态的人,评分从15.3±4.2降至4.0±2.6(p <0.001),筛查组(组2)的评分从15.5±3.9降至4.6±3.0( p <0.001),在线CBT组(第3组)分数从15.4±3.8降低到3.4±2.7(p <0.01),阶梯式护理途径组(#4组)分数从15.3±3.6降低到5.4± 2.8(p <0.05)。总之,这项受控随机研究的这些发现并不表明在家庭实践中使用抑郁症筛查工具可以改善结局。他们还认为,初级保健中出现的许多抑郁症会自发解决,并不支持更复杂的治疗方案或途径改善初级保健中抑郁症结局的建议。由于研究限制,需要进行复制研究。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号