Grant C, Goodenough T, Harvey I, Hine C
Division of Primary Health Care, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 2PR.
BMJ. 2000 Feb 12;320(7232):419-23. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7232.419.
To compare outcome and resource utilisation among patients referred to the Amalthea Project, a liaison organisation that facilitates contact between voluntary organisations and patients in primary care, with patients receiving routine general practitioner care.
Randomised controlled trial with follow up at one and four months.
26 general practices in Avon.
161 patients identified by their general practitioner as having psychosocial problems.
Primary outcomes were psychological wellbeing (assessed with the hospital anxiety and depression scale) and social support (assessed using the Duke-UNC functional social support questionnaire). Secondary outcomes were quality of life measures (the Dartmouth COOP/WONCA functional health assessment charts and the delighted-terrible faces scale), cost of contacts with the primary healthcare team and Amalthea Project, cost of prescribing in primary care, and cost of referrals to other agencies, over four months.
The Amalthea group showed significantly greater improvements in anxiety (average difference between groups after adjustment for baseline -1.9, 95% confidence interval -3.0 to -0.7), other emotional feelings (average adjusted difference -0.5, -0.8 to -0.2), ability to carry out everyday activities (-0.5, -0.8 to -0.2), feelings about general health (-0.4, -0.7 to -0.1), and quality of life (-0.5, -0.9 to -0.1). No difference was detected in depression or perceived social support. The mean cost was significantly greater in the Amalthea arm than the general practitioner care arm ( pound153 v pound133, P=0. 025).
Referral to the Amalthea Project and subsequent contact with the voluntary sector results in clinically important benefits compared with usual general practitioner care in managing psychosocial problems, but at a higher cost.
比较被转介至阿玛尔忒亚项目(一个促进志愿组织与初级保健患者之间联系的联络组织)的患者与接受常规全科医生护理的患者的治疗结果和资源利用情况。
为期四个月、分1个月和4个月进行随访的随机对照试验。
埃文郡的26家全科诊所。
161名被全科医生认定存在心理社会问题的患者。
主要结局为心理健康(采用医院焦虑抑郁量表进行评估)和社会支持(使用杜克大学-北卡罗来纳大学功能性社会支持问卷进行评估)。次要结局为生活质量指标(达特茅斯COOP/WONCA功能性健康评估图表和高兴-难过脸谱量表)、与初级医疗团队及阿玛尔忒亚项目联系的成本、初级保健中的开药成本以及四个月内转介至其他机构的成本。
阿玛尔忒亚组在焦虑(基线调整后组间平均差异-1.9,95%置信区间-3.0至-0.7)、其他情绪感受(平均调整差异-0.5,-0.8至-0.2)、进行日常活动的能力(-0.5,-0.8至-0.2)、对总体健康的感受(-0.4,-0.7至-0.1)和生活质量(-0.5,-0.9至-0.1)方面有显著更大的改善。在抑郁或感知到的社会支持方面未发现差异。阿玛尔忒亚组的平均成本显著高于全科医生护理组(153英镑对133英镑,P = 0.025)。
与常规全科医生护理相比,转介至阿玛尔忒亚项目并随后与志愿部门接触在处理心理社会问题方面带来了临床上重要的益处,但成本更高。