Search

Background: Primary care clinicians see people experiencing the full range of mental health problems. Determining when symptoms reflect disorder is complex. The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) uniquely distinguishes general distress from depressive and anxiety disorders. It may support diagnostic conversations and targeting of treatment. Aim: To explore peoples' experiences of completing the 4DSQ and their perceptions of their resulting score profile across distress, depression, anxiety, and physical symptoms. Design and setting: A qualitative study was conducted in the UK with people recruited from primary care and community settings. Method: Participants completed the 4DSQ then took part in semi-structured telephone interviews. They were interviewed about their experience of completing the 4DSQ, their perceptions of their scores across four dimensions, and the perceived utility if used with a clinician. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and data were analysed thematically. Results: Twenty-four interviews were conducted. Most participants found the 4DSQ easy to complete and reported that scores across the four dimensions aligned well with their symptom experience. Distinct scores for distress, depression, and anxiety appeared to support improved self-understanding. Some valued the opportunity to discuss their scores and provide relevant context. Many felt the use of the 4DSQ with clinicians would be helpful and likely to support treatment decisions, although some were concerned about time-limited consultations. Conclusion: Distinguishing general distress from depressive and anxiety disorders aligned well with people's experience of symptoms. Use of the 4DSQ as part of mental health consultations may support targeting of treatment and personalisation of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. GPs are daily confronted with mental disorders and psychosomatic problems. The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ), measuring distress, depression, anxiety and somatization, was purposively developed for primary care. It has been translated into 12 languages and is commonly used in several countries. It was translated into French in 2008, by forward and backward translation, but it has not been validated for a primary care population. Aim. This study aimed to establish whether the French 4DSQ measured the same constructs in the same way as the original Dutch 4DSQ. Method. Two samples of French general practice patients were recruited during routine care to obtain as much variability as possible. One sample included consecutive patients, from the waiting room of rural GPs, over a period of 2 weeks and the other sample included patients with suspected psychological problems or unexplained symptoms. This population was compared to a matched Dutch sample using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and differential item functioning (DIF) analysis. Results. A total of 231 patients, from 15 French GPs, completed the questionnaire (Dutch reference group: 231). Mean age was 42.9 years (Dutch: 42.1); females numbered 71% in both samples. The multigroup CFA assessed configural invariance of one-factor models per 4DSQ scale. Thirteen of the total of 50 items in the 4DSQ, in three scales, were detected with DIF. However, DIF did not impact on the scale scores. Conclusion. French 4DSQ scales have the same latent structures and measure the same traits as the original Dutch 4DSQ. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Anxiety and depression are not always diagnosed and treated in primary care as has been recommended. A tailored implementation programme, which addresses key barriers for change by targeted interventions, may help to remedy this. Methods: The effectiveness of an individually tailored implementation programme, additional to standardised training and feedback on the recognition and treatment of patients with anxiety or depression in general practice, was examined in a cluster randomised controlled trial. Participants were 46 general practitioners (GPs) from 23 general practices (12 intervention, 11 control) and 444 patients aged 18 years or older (198 intervention, 246 control) who screened positive on the extended Kessler 10. In the control group, GPs received a 1-day training in guidelines for recognition and stepped treatment for anxiety and depression. Ten months after the training session, GPs received feedback on their performance over the preceding 6 months. In the intervention group, GPs received the same training and feedback as those in the control condition; in addition, they were offered support, tailored to perceived local barriers to change. The support was delivered in the format of peer group supervisions and personalised telephone consultations. Data were based on an audit of patient records and patient surveys at baseline and after 3 and 6 months. Results: The tailored implementation programme led to recognition of a higher proportion of patients presenting with anxiety and depression (42% versus 31%; odds ratio (OR) = 1.60; 95% CI: 1.01-2.53), more consultations after recognition (IRR = 1.78; 95% CI: 1.14-2.78) and did not lead to more prescription of antidepressants (OR = 1.07; 95% CI: 0.52-2.19) or referral to specialist mental health services (OR = 1.62; 95% CI: 0.72-3.64). Patients in the intervention group reported better accessibility of care (effect size (ES) = 0.4; p < 0.05) and provision of information and advice (ES = 0.5; p < 0.05). Conclusions: A tailored implementation programme may enhance the recognition and treatment of patients with anxiety or depression. Further development and evaluation of the programme is warranted to determine its cost-effectiveness. Trail registration: Dutch Trial Register identifier NTR1912. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Anxiety scales may help primary care physicians to detect specific anxiety disorders among the many emotionally distressed patients presenting in primary care. The anxiety scale of the Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) consists of an admixture of symptoms of specific anxiety disorders. The research questions were: (1) Is the anxiety scale unidimensional or multidimensional? (2) To what extent does the anxiety scale detect specific DSM-IV anxiety disorders? (3) Which cut-off points are suitable to rule out or to rule in (which) anxiety disorders? Methods We analyzed 5 primary care datasets with standardized psychiatric diagnoses and 4DSQ scores. Unidimensionality was assessed through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). We examined mean scores and anxiety score distributions per disorder. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to determine optimal cut-off points. Results Total n was 969. CFA supported unidimensionality. The anxiety scale performed slightly better in detecting patients with panic disorder, agoraphobia, social phobia, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) than patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and specific phobia. ROC-analysis suggested that ≥4 was the optimal cut-off point to rule out and ≥10 the cut-off point to rule in anxiety disorders. Conclusions The 4DSQ anxiety scale measures a common trait of pathological anxiety that is characteristic of anxiety disorders, in particular panic disorder, agoraphobia, social phobia, OCD and PTSD. The anxiety score detects the latter anxiety disorders to a slightly greater extent than GAD and specific phobia, without being able to distinguish between the different anxiety disorder types. The cut-off points ≥4 and ≥10 can be used to separate distressed patients in three groups with a relatively low, moderate and high probability of having one or more anxiety disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Thus far collaborative stepped care (CSC) studies have not incorporated self-help as a first step.Aims: To evaluate the effectiveness of CSC in the treatment of common mental disorders.Method: An 8-month cluster randomised controlled trial comparing CSC to care as usual (CAU) (Dutch Trial Register identifier NTR1224). The CSC consisted of a stepped care approach guided by a psychiatric nurse in primary care with the addition of antidepressants dependent on the severity of the disorder, followed by cognitive-behavioural therapy in mental healthcare.Results: Twenty general practitioners (GPs) and 8 psychiatric nurses were randomised to provide CSC or CAU. The GPs recruited 163 patients of whom 85% completed the post-test measurements. At 4-month mid-test CSC was superior to CAU: 74.7% (n = 68) v. 50.8% (n = 31) responders (P = 0.003). At 8-month post-test and 12-month follow-up no significant differences were found as the patients in the CAU group improved as well.Conclusions: Treatment within a CSC model resulted in an earlier treatment response compared with CAU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The uptake of guideline recommendations in general practice can potentially be improved by designing implementation interventions that are tailored to prospectively identify barriers. However, there is insufficient evidence regarding the most effective and efficient approaches to tailoring. Our study provides an insight into the usefulness of tailored interventions to prospectively identified barriers affecting the uptake of guideline recommendations for anxiety and depressive disorders experienced by general practitioners (GPs) in their local context. Methods: A qualitative study was conducted, in which 23 GPs gave informed consent and 14 finally participated. To explore the barriers affecting the uptake of guideline recommendations, a face-to-face interview was conducted with each GP to generate a personalised list. In response to this list, interventions were tailored to remove the barriers experienced by the GPs. To examine the perceived usefulness of the tailored interventions, telephone interviews were conducted after one year and coded through thematic coding. The analysis was descriptive in nature. Results: The most frequently perceived barriers were: a lack of knowledge and skills, no agreement on guideline recommendations, negative outcome expectancy, low self-efficacy, no consensus with patients, and a lack of information about treatments provided by mental health professionals, together with waiting lists. The tailored interventions 'peer group supervision' and 'individualised telephone consultations' were perceived as useful by most GPs. Besides the tailored interventions, a perceived benefit of using a self-rating scale, measuring depressive and anxiety symptoms, and the idea of delivering better patient care, were supportive in the uptake of guideline recommendations. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that tailoring interventions to prospectively identified barriers, affecting the uptake of guideline recommendations for anxiety and depressive disorders, as perceived by GPs, may enhance the implementation of these guideline recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Psychosocial problems are more prevalent among patients with chronic diseases than among the general population. They may lead to a downward spiral of poor adherence, deterioration of the condition and decline in daily functioning. In addition to medical management, systematic attention to emotional and role management tasks during routine chronic care seems mandatory. We intend to integrate an existing nurse-led minimal psychological intervention to support patients' self-management, which appeared to be effective and cost-effective, in routine care by primary care nurses, so we adjusted it to fit the host setting. The resulting Self-Management Support (SMS) programme involves early detection of patients with emotional distress and problems of daily functioning, as well as self-management support through problem solving and reattribution techniques. Strategies to embed SMS in daily practice include training and booster sessions for practice nurses as well as organisational and financial arrangements. This study aims to simultaneously evaluate the implementation process and effects of SMS in routine care, using a hybrid effectiveness-implementation design. Methods/Design: Registration data, questionnaires and interviews will be used to explore the facilitators, barriers and costs regarding successful implementation of SMS. The effects of SMS will be evaluated in a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial with a baseline measurement and follow-up measurements after 4 and 12 months. The population will consist of 46 practice nurses and their type 2 diabetes patients (N = 460; 10 per practice nurse). The practice nurses will be randomly assigned to the intervention or control group. Practice nurses of the intervention group will receive SMS training. Patients for the intervention and control groups will be recruited by a researcher-led self-administered screening procedure to decide which patients of those scheduled for routine consultation are likely to be detected by the practice nurses as eligible for the self-management support. Primary outcome measure is patients' daily functioning. Secondary measures include emotional well-being, participation, autonomy and control over the disease. Discussion: Our hybrid study design is complicated by the detection method used by the practice nurses. This method is an implementation issue in itself that has consequences for the realisation and power of the effect evaluation [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The original Dutch Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ), which measures distress, depression, anxiety and somatization, has been translated into Polish with the aim of providing primary health care with a good screening instrument for the detection of the most prevalent mental health problems (anxiety, somatization, depression and distress). Aim To check if the Polish version is cross-culturally valid so that the scores of Polish subjects can be compared with the scores of Dutch subjects and the Dutch cut-off points can be used in Polish subjects. Method 4DSQ data were collected from a mixed sample of students and primary care attendees. The Polish data were compared with the 4DSQ data of a matched sample of Dutch students and primary care attendees. Two methods of differential item functioning (DIF) analysis, ordinal logistic regression and generalized Mantel–Haenszel, were used to detect items with DIF, and linear regression analysis was used to estimate the scale-level impact of DIF. Results Four items showing DIF were detected in the distress scale, one in the somatization scale and one in the anxiety scale. The DIF in distress caused Polish subjects with moderate scores to score circa 1 point less than their Dutch counterparts. Conclusions The results of the DIF analyses suggest that the Polish 4DSQ measures the same constructs as the Dutch 4DSQ and that the Dutch norms can be used for the Polish subjects, except for distress: the first cut-off point should be one point lower. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Anxiety disorders are highly prevalent in primary care and cause a substantial burden of disease. Screening on risk status, followed by preventive interventions in those at risk may prevent the onset of anxiety disorders, and thereby reduce the disease burden. The willingness to participate in screening and interventions is crucial for the scope of preventive strategies, but unknown. This feasibility study, therefore, investigated participation rates of screening and preventive services for anxiety disorders in primary care, and explored reasons to refrain from screening. Methods: In three general practices, screening was offered to individuals visiting their general practitioner (total n = 2454). To assess risk status, a 10-item questionnaire was followed by a telephone interview (including the CIDI) when scoring above a predefined threshold. Preventive services were offered to those at risk. Participation rates for screening and preventive services for anxiety disorders were assessed. Those not willing to be screened were asked for their main reason to refrain from screening. Results: Of all individuals, 17.3% participated in initial screening, and of those with a possible risk status, 56.0% continued screening. In 30.1% of those assessed, a risk status to develop an anxiety disorder was verified. Of these, 22.6% already received some form of mental health treatment and 38.7% of them agreed to participate in a preventive intervention and were referred. The most frequently mentioned reasons to refrain from screening were the emotional burden associated with elevated risk status, the assumption not to be at risk, and a lack of motivation to act upon an elevated risk status by using preventive services. Conclusions: Screening in general practice, followed by offering services to prevent anxiety disorders in those at risk did not appear to be a feasible strategy due to low participation rates. To enable the development of feasible and cost-effective preventive strategies, exploring the reasons of low participation rates, considering involving general practitioners in preventive strategies, and looking at preventive strategies in somatic health care with proven feasibility may be helpful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The primary care evaluation of mental disorders (PRIME-MD) can be seen as characteristic for successive refinements of criteria and structured interview techniques for diagnosing psychiatric disorders in primary care. It is one of the most widely used instruments, but there is no evidence to support its test-retest reliability. With 1-week intervals between interviews, a test-retest study of the PRIME-MD was conducted in a general practice population of 100 distressed patients (20- to 60-years old) who were on sick leave. Almost everyone (89%) received one or more diagnoses at both measurements, and there was fair total agreement (k=0.27). The best agreement was found for more severe threshold disorders [major depressive disorder (k=0.58), dysthymia (k=0.57), and generalized anxiety disorder (k = 0.59)], while we found indefinite results for the sub-threshold disorders [anxiety disorder not otherwise specified (NOS) (k=.30), minor depressive disorder (k=-0.03), and somatoform disorder NOS (k=0.11)]. The PRIME-MD is one of the few instruments in primary care that actually diagnoses specific mental disorders according to the DSM criteria. However, there was a failure to adequately classify sub-threshold disorders. Mental disorders, as seen in primary care, encompass important specific symptoms and clinical syndromes that vary in duration and severity over time, but they also encompass an admixture of somatic and psychological symptoms that do not match current diagnostic systems. This most likely resulted in methodological uncertainty about the level of agreement. Diagnostic criteria in psychiatry need to be operationalized for use in primary care and require further evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Mental health problems often affect functioning to such an extent that they result in sick leave. The worldwide reported prevalence of mental health problems in the working population is 10%-18%. In developed countries, mental health problems are one of the main grounds for receiving disability benefits. In up to 90% of cases the cause is stress-related, and health-care utilisation is mainly restricted to primary care. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of our Minimal Intervention for Stress-related mental disorders with Sick leave (MISS) in primary care, which is intended to reduce sick leave and prevent chronicity of symptoms. Design: Cluster-randomised controlled educational trial. Setting: Primary health-care practices in the Amsterdam area, The Netherlands. Participants: A total of 433 patients (MISS n 1/4 227, usual care [UC] n 1/4 206) with sick leave and self-reported elevated level of distress. Interventions: Forty-six primary care physicians were randomised to either receive training in the MISS or to provide UC. Eligible patients were screened by mail. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was duration of sick leave until lasting full return to work. The secondary outcomes were levels of self-reported distress, depression, anxiety, and somatisation. Results: No superior effect of the MISS was found on duration of sick leave (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.87-1.29) nor on severity of self-reported symptoms. Conclusions: We found no evidence that the MISS is more effective than UC in our study sample of distressed patients. Continuing research should focus on the potential beneficial effects of the MISS; we need to investigate which elements of the intervention might be useful and which elements should be adjusted to make the MISS effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sickness absence often occurs in patients with emotional distress or minor mental disorders. In several European countries, these patients are over-represented among those receiving illness benefits, and interventions are needed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an intervention conducted by social workers, designed to reduce sick leave duration in patients absent from work owing to emotional distress or minor mental disorders. Methods: In this Randomized Controlled Trial, patients were recruited by GPs. The intervention group (N = 98) received an activating, structured treatment by social workers, the control group (N = 96) received routine GP care. Sick leave duration, clinical symptoms, and medical consumption (consumption of medical staffs' time as well as consumption of drugs) were measured at baseline and 3, 6, and 18 months later. Results: Neither for sick leave duration nor for clinical improvement over time were significant differences found between the groups. Also the associated costs were not significantly lower in the intervention group. Conclusions: Compared with usual GP care, the activating social work intervention was not superior in reducing sick leave duration, improving clinical symptoms, and decreasing medical consumption. It was also not cost-effective compared with GP routine care in the treatment of minor mental disorders. Therefore, further implementation of the intervention is not justified. Potentially, programmes aimed at reducing sick leave duration in patients with minor mental disorders carried out closer to the workplace (e.g. by occupational physicians) are more successful than programmes in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Minor and mild-major depression are highly prevalent in primary care. There is insufficient evidence for the effectiveness of antidepressants the treatment of minor and mildmajor depression. We compared the effectiveness of usual primary care treatment, with or without antidepressants, in minor and mild-major depression. Methods: A pragmatic patient-randomized equivalence trial with 52 weeks follow-up was conducted in The Netherlands. In total, 59 primary care physicians (PCPs) recruited and treated 181 adult patients with minor or mild-major depression. Patients were randomized to four consultations within 3 months of usual care plus antidepressants (UCandAD) or usual care alone (UCnoAD). The Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) was used to assess changes in severity of depressive symptoms. The predefined equivalence margin was set at five points. Multilevel analysis was used to analyze the data. Secondary outcome measures were the Short-Form 36 (SF-36), and the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8). Results: Patients received on average 3.0 (SD 1.4) 15-min consultations within 3 months with (n = 85) or without paroxetine (n = 96). Equivalence of UCandAD and UCnoAD was demonstrated in the intention-to-treat analyses as well as the per-protocol analysis after 6 weeks, but not at 13, 26 and 52 weeks follow-up. No statistical differences in effectiveness between treatment groups were found in the intention-to-treat analysis. No differences in the physical and mental functioning (SF-36) were found between the treatment groups. Patients allocated to UCandAD were slightly more satisfied with their treatment at 13 weeks follow-up (but not at 52 weeks follow-up) than patients allocated to UCnoAD. Preliminary analyses suggested that subgroups such as patients with mild-major (instead of a minor) depression might benefit from antidepressant treatment. Patients Conclusion: UCandAD was as effective as UCnoAD over the first 6 weeks, but not at 13, 26, and 52 weeks. However, superiority of either treatment could not be demonstrated either. The question whether antidepressants add any clinical effect to usual care remains unresolved. We recommend future studies to look for subgroups of patients who may benefit from antidepressants. Trial registration: Dutch Trial Registry ISRCN03007807. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Minor mental disorders are common among patients who visit their general practitioner. In the Netherlands, they are associated with high costs due to absenteeism, disability benefits and medical consumption (consumption of drugs as well as expenditure of medical staff's time). In the Netherlands, a protocol was developed for the treatment of minor mental disorders, based on the principles of brief cognitive behaviour therapy. The cost-effectiveness of this protocol was tested in a group of patients whose minor mental disorders had lead to sickness absence. The protocol was completed by Dutch social workers, one of whose core tasks normally is to provide psychosocial care. The main aims of the protocol are for the patient to regain functionality and to prevent long-term disability. The protocol emphasizes patients' own responsibility and active role in the recovery process, includes homework assignments and stresses the importance of early work resumption. This article focuses on a discussion of the feasibility of this treatment for minor mental disorders. The evidence for or against the protocol's cost-effectiveness will be discussed in future papers. The results show that patients, social workers and general practitioners were motivated to participate and that the protocol was well received by all three groups. If the treatment also proves to be cost-effective, it would appear to be a promising intervention for a frequently encountered problem in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Detection of psychiatric disorder in primary care is a complex issue. Distinctions between ‘normal’ emotional distress and psychiatric disorder depend on how disorder is conceptualized. Our aim was to explore two different conceptualizations by examining patients' scores on one-dimensional depression measures and scores on the Four Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ), a measure that uniquely has separate dimensions for general distress and depressive disorder. Methods This was a cross sectional study of 487 primary care patients attending general clinics in Hampshire, UK. Patients completed the 4DSQ, Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) whilst in the waiting room. Results The 4DSQ classified 26% (126/485) of patients as having heightened distress levels and 8% (38/468) as possible cases of depressive disorder. Casesness was consistently higher across the one-dimensional measures (PHQ-9: 16%, GHQ-12: 28%, HADS-D: 13%). Of those patients deemed possible cases by the PHQ-9 (≥10), the 4DSQ classified 91% (71/78) as having heightened distress and 44% (32/72) as possible cases of depressive disorder. Limitations The sample was predominately older and white, which may limit generalizability of the findings to more diverse patient groups. There are limits to self-report measures in the assessment of complex diagnostic issues. Conclusions Inclusion of a distinct general distress dimension alongside a dimension focusing on specific depression symptomatology lowered the number of primary care patients classified as possible cases of disorder. This view of symptoms may have implications for the targeting of existing treatments, and may be useful in guiding the development of novel self-management interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: Previous studies reported low and inconsistent rates of recognition of anxiety disorders by family physicians (FPs). Our objectives were to examine (a) which combination of indications within medical records most accurately reflects recognition of anxiety disorders and (b) whether patient and FP characteristics were related to recognition. Method: A cross-sectional comparison was made between FPs'' registration and a structured diagnostic interview, the Composite International Diagnostic Interview, according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, criteria. Seven definitions of recognition were tested using diagnostic codes, medication data, referral data and free text in medical records. Data were derived from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety. A total of 816 patients were included. Results: Recognition ranged between 9.1% and 85.8%. A broader definition was associated with a higher recognition rate, but led to more false positives. The best definition comprised diagnostic codes for anxiety disorders and symptoms, strong free-text indications, medication and referral to mental health care. Generalized anxiety disorder was best recognized by this definition. Recognition was better among patients with increased severity, comorbid depression and older age. Conclusion: FPs recognized anxiety disorders better than previously reported when all medical record data were taken into account. However, most patients were nonspecifically labeled as having a mental health problem. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an activating intervention designed to reduce sick leave duration in patients with emotional distress or minor mental disorders. Method: In a 1.5-year randomized controlled trial, 194 patients with minor mental disorders received either an experimental intervention by social workers or general practitioners'' usual care. The intervention focused on understanding causes, developing and implementing problem-solving strategies and promoting early work resumption. Outcome measures were sick leave duration, mental health and physical health (questionnaires included the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire and SF-36), all measured at baseline at and 3, 6 and 18 months later. Multilevel analyses were used to evaluate differences between groups. Results: The groups did not differ significantly on any of the outcome measures, except that the experimental group reported higher satisfaction with treatment. Conclusion: Although the intervention has benefits, it was not successful at its primary goal (i.e., to reduce sick leave duration in patients with emotional distress or minor mental disorders). Programs aimed at the reduction of sick leave duration may yield better results if targeted at patients with more severe emotional problems than at those with exclusively emotional distress or minor mental disorders, or if delivered by caregivers who are closer to the work environment than are social workers, such as occupational physicians. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The aim of this study was to validate the Dutch version of the Kessler-10 (K10) as well as an extended version (EK10) in screening for depressive and anxiety disorders in primary care. Data are from 1607 participants (18 through 65 years, 68.8% female) of the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA), recruited from 65 general practitioners. Participants completed the K10, extended with five additional questions focusing on core anxiety symptoms, and were evaluated with the WHO Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI lifetime version 2.1) to assess DSM-IV disorders (major depressive disorder, dysthymia, generalized anxiety disorder, social phobia, panic disorder, agoraphobia). Reliability (Cronbach''s α) of the Dutch K10 was 0.94. Based on Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) analysis, the area under the curve (AUC) for the K10 for any depressive and/or anxiety disorder was found to be 0.87. The extended questions on the EK10 significantly improved the detection of anxiety disorders in particular. With a cut-off point of 20, the K10 reached a sensitivity of 0.80 and a specificity of 0.81 for any depressive and/or anxiety disorder. For the EK10, a cut-off point of 20 and/or at least one positive answer on the additional questions provided a sensitivity of 0.90 and a specificity of 0.75 for detecting any depressive and/or anxiety disorder. The Dutch version of the K10 is appropriate for screening depressive disorders in primary care, while the EK10 is preferred in screening for both depressive and anxiety disorders. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background: Stress-related mental health problems negatively impact quality of life and productivity. Worldwide, treatment is often sought in primary care. Our objective was to determine whether a general practitioner-based minimal intervention for workers with stress-related sick leave (MISS) was cost-effective compared to usual care (UC). Methods: We conducted an economic evaluation from a societal perspective. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and resource use were measured by the EuroQol and cost diaries, respectively. Uncertainty was estimated by 95% confidence intervals, cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves. Sensitivity analyses and ancillary analyses based on preplanned subgroups were performed. Results: No statistically significant differences in costs or QALYs were observed. The mean incremental cost per QALY was −€7356 and located in the southeast quadrant of the cost-effectiveness plane, whereby the intervention was slightly more effective and less costly. For willingness-to-pay (λ) thresholds from €0 to €100,000, the probability of MISS being cost-effective was 0.58–0.90. For the preplanned subgroup of patients diagnosed with stress-related mental disorders, the incremental ratio was −€28,278, again in the southeast quadrant. Corresponding probabilities were 0.92 or greater. Limitations: Non-significant findings may be related to poor implementation of the MISS intervention and low power. Also, work-presenteeism and unpaid labor were not measured. Conclusions: The minimal intervention was not cost-effective compared to usual care for a heterogeneous patient population. Therefore, we do not recommend widespread implementation. However, the intervention may be cost-effective for the subgroup stress-related mental disorders. This finding should be confirmed before implementation for this subgroup is considered. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]