http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/21396/ List of Publications en http://repub.eur.nl/static-eur/img/logo.png http://repub.eur.nl http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/37646/ 2012-10-15T00:00:00Z Background: Practice variation in the primary care treatment of depression may be considerable in the Netherlands, due to relatively small and unregulated practices. We adapted the collaborative care model for the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) to accommodate existing practice variation and tested whether this had added value over Care as Usual (CAU). Methods: A cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare an adapted target driven collaborative care model with Care as Usual (CAU). Randomization was at the level of 18 (sub)urban primary care centers. The care manager and GP were supported by a web-based tracking and decision aid system that advised targeted treatment actions to achieve rapid response and if possible remission, and that warned the consultant psychiatrist if such treatment advice was not followed up. Eligible patients had a score of 10 or higher on the PHQ9, and met diagnostic criteria for major depression at the subsequent MINI Neuropsychiatric interview. A total of 93 patients were identified by screening. They received either collaborative care (CC) or CAU. Another 56 patients received collaborative care after identification by the GP. The outcome measures were response to treatment (50% or greater reduction of the PHQ9-total score from baseline) at three, six, nine and twelve months, and remission (a score of 0-4 on the PHQ9 at follow-up). Results: Treatment response and remission in CAU were low. Collaborative care was more effective on achieving treatment response than CAU at three months for the total group of patients who received collaborative care [OR 5.2 ((1.41-16.09), NNT 2] and at nine months [OR 5.6 ((1.40-22.58)), NNT 3]. The effect was not statistically significant at 6 and 12 months. Limitations: A relatively high percentage of patients (36.5%) did not return one or more follow-up questionnaires. There was no evidence for selective non response. Conclusions: Our adapted target driven CC was considerably more effective than CAU for MDD in primary care in the Netherlands. The Numbers Needed To Treat (NNT) to achieve response in one additional patient were low (2-3), which suggest that introducing CC at a larger scale may be beneficial. The relatively large effects may be due to our focus on reducing practice variation through the introduction of easy to use web based tracking and decision aids. The findings are highly relevant for the application of the model in areas where practices tend to be small and for mixed healthcare systems such as in many countries in Europe. Trial registration: Dutch trial register ISRCTN15266438 (http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=820). http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/19869/ 2010-03-04T00:00:00Z Background. The effectiveness of collaborative care for patients with major depressive disorder in primary care has been established. Assessing its cost-effectiveness is important for deciding on implementation. This review therefore evaluates the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for major depressive disorder in primary care. Methods. A systematic search on economic evaluations of collaborative care was conducted in Pubmed and PsychInfo. Quality of the studies was measured with the Cochrane checklist and the CHEC-list for economic evaluations. Cost-effectiveness and costs per depression-free days were reported. Results. 8 studies were found, involving 4868 patients. The quality of the cost effectiveness studies, according to the CHEC-list, could be improved. Generally, the studies did not include all relevant costs and did not perform sensitivity analysis. Only 4 out of 8 studies reported cost per QALY, 6 out of 8 reported costs per depression-free days. The highest costs per QALY reported were $49,500, the highest costs per depression-free day were $24. Conclusions. Although studies did not fulfil all criteria of the CHEC-list, collaborative care is a promising intervention and it may be cost-effective. However, to conclude on the cost-effectiveness, depression research should follow economic guidelines to improve the quality of the economic evaluations. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/17777/ 2009-10-15T00:00:00Z Background. Panic disorder (PD) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) are two of the most disabling and costly anxiety disorders seen in primary care. However, treatment quality of these disorders in primary care generally falls beneath the standard of international guidelines. Collaborative stepped care is recommended for improving treatment of anxiety disorders, but cost-effectiveness of such an intervention has not yet been assessed in primary care. This article describes the aims and design of a study that is currently underway. The aim of this study is to evaluate effects and costs of a collaborative stepped care approach in the primary care setting for patients with PD and GAD compared with care as usual. Methods/design. The study is a two armed, cluster randomized controlled trial. Care managers and their primary care practices will be randomized to deliver either collaborative stepped care (CSC) or care as usual (CAU). In the CSC group a general practitioner, care manager and psychiatrist work together in a collaborative care framework. Stepped care is provided in three steps: 1) guided self-help, 2) cognitive behavioral therapy and 3) antidepressant medication. Primary care patients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of PD and/or GAD will be included. 134 completers are needed to attain sufficient power to show a clinically significant effect of 1/2 SD on the primary outcome measure, the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI). Data on anxiety symptoms, mental and physical health, quality of life, health resource use and productivity will be collected at baseline and after three, six, nine and twelve months. Discussion. It is hypothesized that the collaborative stepped care intervention will be more cost-effective than care as usual. The pragmatic design of this study will enable the researchers to evaluate what is possible in real clinical practice, rather than under ideal circumstances. Many requirements for a high quality trial are being met. Results of this study will contribute to treatment options for GAD and PD in the primary care setting. Results will become available in 2011. Trial registration. NTR1071. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/36924/ 2007-03-14T00:00:00Z Background. Depressive disorder is currently one of the most burdensome disorders worldwide. Evidence-based treatments for depressive disorder are already available, but these are used insufficiently, and with less positive results than possible. Earlier research in the USA has shown good results in the treatment of depressive disorder based on a collaborative care approach with Problem Solving Treatment and an antidepressant treatment algorithm, and research in the UK has also shown good results with Problem Solving Treatment. These treatment strategies may also work very well in the Netherlands too, even though health care systems differ between countries. Methods/design. This study is a two-armed randomised clinical trial, with randomization on patient-level. The aim of the trial is to evaluate the treatment of depressive disorder in primary care in the Netherlands by means of an adapted collaborative care framework, including contracting and adherence-improving strategies, combined with Problem Solving Treatment and antidepressant medication according to a treatment algorithm. Forty general practices will be randomised to either the intervention group or the control group. Included will be patients who are diagnosed with moderate to severe depression, based on DSM-IV criteria, and stratified according to comorbid chronic physical illness. Patients in the intervention group will receive treatment based on the collaborative care approach, and patients in the control group will receive care as usual. Baseline measurements and follow up measures (3, 6, 9 and 12 months) are assessed using questionnaires and an interview. The primary outcome measure is severity of depressive symptoms, according to the PHQ9. Secondary outcome measures are remission as measured with the PHQ9 and the IDS-SR, and cost-effectiveness measured with the TiC-P, the EQ-5D and the SF-36. Discussion. In this study, an American model to enhance care for patients with a depressive disorder, the collaborative care model, will be evaluated for effectiveness in the primary care setting. If effective across the Atlantic and across different health care systems, it is also likely to be an effective strategy to implement in the treatment of major depressive disorder in the Netherlands. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/36928/ 2007-03-12T00:00:00Z Background. Depressive disorder is one of the most common disorders, and is highly prevalent in chronically ill patients. The presence of comorbid depression has a negative influence on quality of life, health care costs, self-care, morbidity, and mortality. Early diagnosis and well-organized treatment of depression has a positive influence on these aspects. Earlier research in the USA has reported good results with regard to the treatment of depression with a collaborative care approach and an antidepressant algorithm. In the UK 'Problem Solving Treatment' has proved to be feasible. However, in the general hospital setting this approach has not yet been evaluated. Methods/Design. CC: DIM (Collaborative Care: Depression Initiative in the Medical setting) is a two-armed randomised controlled trial with randomisation at patient level. The aim of the trial is to evaluate the treatment of depressive disorder in general hospitals in the Netherlands based on a collaborative care framework, including contracting, 'Problem Solving Treatment', antidepressant algorithm, and manual-guided self-help. 126 outpatients with diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or cardiovascular diseases will be randomised to either the intervention group or the control group. Patients will be included if they have been diagnosed with moderate to severe depression, based on the DSM-IV criteria in a two-step screening method. The intervention group will receive treatment based on the collaborative care approach; the control group will receive 'care as usual'. Baseline and follow-up measurements (after 3, 6, 9, and 12 months) will be performed by means of questionnaires. The primary outcome measure is severity of depressive symptoms, as measured with the PHQ-9. The secondary outcome measure is the cost-effectiveness of these treatments according to the TiC-P, the EuroQol and the SF-36. Discussion. Earlier research has indicated that depressive disorder is a chronic, mostly recurrent illness, which tends to cluster with physical comorbidity. Even though the treatment of depressive disorder based on the guidelines for depression is proven effective, these guidelines are often insufficiently adhered to. Collaborative care and 'Problem Solving Treatment' will be specifically tailored to patients with depressive disorders and evaluated in a general hospital setting in the Netherlands.