Search

Background: Depression is a highly prevalent and costly disorder. Effective treatments are available but are not always delivered to the right person at the right time, with both under- and over-treatment a problem. Up to half the patients presenting to general practice report symptoms of depression, but general practitioners have no systematic way of efficiently identifying level of need and allocating treatment accordingly. Therefore, our team developed a new clinical prediction tool (CPT) to assist with this task. The CPT predicts depressive symptom severity in three months' time and based on these scores classifies individuals into three groups (minimal/mild, moderate, severe), then provides a matched treatment recommendation. This study aims to test whether using the CPT reduces depressive symptoms at three months compared with usual care.Methods: The Target-D study is an individually randomized controlled trial. Participants will be 1320 general practice patients with depressive symptoms who will be approached in the practice waiting room by a research assistant and invited to complete eligibility screening on an iPad. Eligible patients will provide informed consent and complete the CPT on a purpose-built website. A computer-generated allocation sequence stratified by practice and depressive symptom severity group, will randomly assign participants to intervention (treatment recommendation matched to predicted depressive symptom severity group) or comparison (usual care plus Target-D attention control) arms. Follow-up assessments will be completed online at three and 12 months. The primary outcome is depressive symptom severity at three months. Secondary outcomes include anxiety, mental health self-efficacy, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Intention-to-treat analyses will test for differences in outcome means between study arms overall and by depressive symptom severity group.Discussion: To our knowledge, this is the first depressive symptom stratification tool designed for primary care which takes a prognosis-based approach to provide a tailored treatment recommendation. If shown to be effective, this tool could be used to assist general practitioners to implement stepped mental-healthcare models and contribute to a more efficient and effective mental health system.Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR 12616000537459 ). Retrospectively registered on 27 April 2016. See Additional file 1 for trial registration data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the efficacy of a health coaching (HC) intervention designed to prevent excessive gestational weight gain (GWG), and promote positive psychosocial and motivational outcomes in comparison with an Education Alone (EA) group.Design: Randomized-controlled trial.Methods: Two hundred and sixty-one women who were <18 weeks pregnant consented to take part. Those allocated to the HC group received a tailored HC intervention delivered by a Health Coach, whilst those in the EA group attended two education sessions. Women completed measures, including motivation, psychosocial variables, sleep quality, and knowledge, beliefs and expectations concerning GWG, at 15 weeks of gestation (Time 1) and 33 weeks of gestation (Time 2). Post-birth data were also collected at 2 months post-partum (Time 3).Results: There was no intervention effect in relation to weight gained during pregnancy, rate of excessive GWG or birth outcomes. The only differences between HC and EA women were higher readiness (b = 0.29, 95% CIs = 0.03-0.55, p < .05) and the importance to achieve a healthy GWG (b = 0.27, 95% CIs = 0.02-0.52, p < .05), improved sleep quality (b = -0.22, 95% CIs = -0.44 to -0.03, p < .05), and increased knowledge for an appropriate amount of GWG that would be best for their baby's health (b = -1.75, 95% CI = -3.26 to -0.24, p < .05) reported by the HC at Time 2.Conclusions: Whilst the HC intervention was not successful in preventing excessive GWG, several implications for the design of future GWG interventions were identified, including the burden of the intervention commitment and the use of weight monitoring.Statement Of Contribution: What is already known on the subject? Designing interventions to address gestational weight gain (GWG) continues to be a challenge. To date, health behaviour change factors have not been the focus of GWG interventions. What does this study add? Our health coaching (HC) intervention did not reduce GWG more so than education alone (EA). There was an intervention effect on readiness and importance to achieve healthy GWG. Yet there were no group differences regarding confidence to achieve healthy GWG post-intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]