Worrall G, Angel J, Chaulk P, Clarke C, Robbins M
Department of Family Medicine, University of Newfoundland, St. John's.
CMAJ. 1999 Jul 13;161(1):37-40.
Depression, a common disorder often treated by family physicians, may be both underdiagnosed and undertreated. The objective of this study was to determine whether the diagnosis and treatment of depression by family physicians could be improved through an educational strategy.
In this study, conducted between July and December 1997, 42 family physicians in Newfoundland were randomly assigned to an intervention group (3-hour case-based educational session on clinical practice guidelines [CPGs] for depression and access to a psychiatrist for consultation) or to a control group (receipt of CPGs without educational session or access to the psychiatrist). Physicians were asked to keep a log of patients with newly diagnosed depression and to record information on severity of depression, medications and referrals to mental health professionals. Patients were asked to complete the Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) scale before treatment and after 6 months of follow-up. The primary outcome measure was the "gain" score (difference between first and last CES-D scores).
During the study period physicians in the intervention group diagnosed 91 new cases of depression (mean 4.1 per physician) and those in the control group diagnosed 56 (mean 2.8 per physician); the difference was not significant. Most patients (91.2% in the intervention group and 89.3% in the control group received a prescription for an antidepressant on their first visit. Similar proportions (46.2% in the intervention group and 37.5% in the control group) took their medication for the full 6 months; however, significantly more patients in the intervention group were taking an antidepressant at the 6-month follow-up (56% v. 39.3%, p = 0.02). The mean number of visits per patient was similar in the 2 groups (7.7 in the intervention group and 7.6 in the control group). Physicians in the intervention group consulted the psychiatrist 9 times. The overall rate of referrals to psychiatrists and other mental health professionals was 10.9%; however, referrals were significantly higher in the intervention group (15.4% v. 3.5%, p = 0.05). After 6 months of follow-up, a significant difference in gain scores was detected between the intervention and control groups for both the patient's self-rated CES-D scores (mean gain score 19.3 v. 15.5 respectively, p = 0.04) and the physicians' ratings of depression severity before treatment and at 6 months (mean gain 1.1 v. 0.7 respectively, p = 0.02).
The educational strategy had a modest beneficial effect on the outcomes of patients with depression, but there are still concerns regarding the low rates of drug treatment and referral to mental health professionals by family physicians.
抑郁症是一种常由家庭医生治疗的常见疾病,可能存在诊断不足和治疗不足的情况。本研究的目的是确定通过教育策略是否可以改善家庭医生对抑郁症的诊断和治疗。
在1997年7月至12月进行的这项研究中,纽芬兰的42名家庭医生被随机分配到干预组(参加为期3小时的基于病例的抑郁症临床实践指南[CPG]教育课程,并可咨询精神科医生)或对照组(仅收到CPG,无教育课程或无法咨询精神科医生)。要求医生记录新诊断为抑郁症的患者,并记录抑郁症严重程度、用药情况以及转介至心理健康专业人员的信息。要求患者在治疗前和随访6个月后完成流行病学研究中心抑郁量表(CES-D)。主要结局指标是“增益”分数(首次和末次CES-D分数之差)。
在研究期间,干预组医生诊断出91例新的抑郁症病例(每位医生平均4.1例),对照组医生诊断出56例(每位医生平均2.8例);差异不显著。大多数患者(干预组为91.2%,对照组为89.3%)在首次就诊时就收到了抗抑郁药处方。相似比例的患者(干预组为46.2%,对照组为37.5%)服用药物满6个月;然而,在6个月随访时,干预组服用抗抑郁药的患者明显更多(56%对39.3%,p = 0.02)。两组患者的平均就诊次数相似(干预组为7.7次,对照组为7.6次)。干预组医生咨询精神科医生9次。转介至精神科医生和其他心理健康专业人员的总体比例为10.9%;然而,干预组的转介率明显更高(15.4%对3.5%,p = 0.05)。随访6个月后,干预组和对照组在患者自评CES-D分数(平均增益分数分别为19.3和15.5,p = 0.04)以及医生对治疗前和6个月时抑郁症严重程度的评分(平均增益分别为1.1和0.7,p = 0.02)方面均检测到显著差异。
教育策略对抑郁症患者的结局有适度的有益影响,但家庭医生的药物治疗率和转介至心理健康专业人员的比例仍然较低,令人担忧。