Whooley M A, Stone B, Soghikian K
Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, California 94121, USA.
J Gen Intern Med. 2000 May;15(5):293-300. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.04319.x.
To determine the effect of case-finding for depression on frequency of depression diagnoses, prescriptions for antidepressant medications, prevalence of depression, and health care utilization during 2 years of follow-up in elderly primary care patients.
Randomized controlled trial.
Thirteen primary care medical clinics at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, an HMO in Oakland, Calif, were randomly assigned to intervention conditions (7 clinics) or control conditions (6 clinics).
A total of 2,346 patients aged 65 years or older who were attending appointments at these clinics and completed the 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS). GDS scores of 6 or more were considered suggestive of depression.
Primary care physicians in the intervention clinics were notified of their patients' GDS scores. We suggested that participants with severe depressive symptoms (GDS score >/= 11) be referred to the Psychiatry Department and participants with mild to moderate depressive symptoms (GDS score of 6 -10) be evaluated and treated by the primary care physician. Intervention group participants with GDS scores suggestive of depression were also offered a series of organized educational group sessions on coping with depression led by a psychiatric nurse. Primary care physicians in the control clinics were not notified of their patients' GDS scores or advised of the availability of the patient education program (usual care). Participants were followed for 2 years.
Physician diagnosis of depression, prescriptions for antidepressant medications, prevalence of depression as measured by the GDS at 2-year follow-up, and health care utilization were determined. A total of 331 participants (14%) had GDS scores suggestive of depression (GDS >/= 6) at baseline, including 162 in the intervention group and 169 in the control group. During the 2-year follow-up period, 56 (35%) of the intervention participants and 58 (34%) of the control participants received a physician diagnosis of depression (odds ratio [OR], 1.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6 to 1.6; P =.96). Prescriptions for antidepressants were received by 59 (36%) of the intervention participants and 72 (43%) of the control participants (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.5 to 1.2; P =.3). Two-year follow-up GDS scores were available for 206 participants (69% of survivors): at that time, 41 (42%) of the 97 intervention participants and 54 (50%) of the 109 control participants had GDS scores suggestive of depression (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.4 to 1.3; P =.3). Comparing participants in the intervention and control groups, there were no significant differences in mean GDS change scores (-2.4 +/- SD 3.7 vs -2.1 SD +/- 3.6; P =.5) at the 2-year follow-up, nor were there significant differences in mean number of clinic visits (1.8 +/- SD 3.1 vs 1.6 +/- SD 2.8; P =.5) or mean number of hospitalizations (1.1 +/- SD 1.6 vs 1.0 +/- SD 1.4; P =.8) during the 2-year period. In participants with initial GDS scores > 11, there was a mean change in GDS score of -5.6 +/- SD 3.9 for intervention participants (n = 13) and -3.4 +/- SD 4.5 for control participants (n = 21). Adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics between groups did not affect results.
We were unable to demonstrate any benefit from case-finding for depression during 2 years of follow-up in elderly primary care patients. Studies are needed to determine whether case-finding combined with more intensive patient education and follow-up will improve outcomes of primary care patients with depression.
确定在老年初级保健患者的两年随访期内,抑郁症病例筛查对抑郁症诊断频率、抗抑郁药物处方、抑郁症患病率及医疗保健利用情况的影响。
随机对照试验。
加利福尼亚州奥克兰的凯泽永久医疗中心的13家初级保健诊所被随机分配至干预组(7家诊所)或对照组(6家诊所)。
共有2346名65岁及以上在这些诊所就诊并完成15项老年抑郁量表(GDS)的患者。GDS得分6分及以上被视为提示有抑郁症。
干预组诊所的初级保健医生被告知其患者的GDS得分。我们建议严重抑郁症状(GDS得分≥11)的参与者转诊至精神科,轻度至中度抑郁症状(GDS得分6 - 10)的参与者由初级保健医生进行评估和治疗。GDS得分提示有抑郁症的干预组参与者还参加了由精神科护士主持的一系列关于应对抑郁症的有组织的教育小组会议。对照组诊所的初级保健医生未被告知其患者的GDS得分,也未被告知患者教育项目的可用性(常规护理)。对参与者随访2年。
确定医生对抑郁症的诊断、抗抑郁药物处方、2年随访时通过GDS测量的抑郁症患病率及医疗保健利用情况。共有331名参与者(14%)在基线时GDS得分提示有抑郁症(GDS≥6),其中干预组162名,对照组169名。在2年随访期内,干预组56名(35%)参与者和对照组58名(34%)参与者被医生诊断为抑郁症(比值比[OR],1.0;95%置信区间[CI],0.6至1.6;P = 0.96)。干预组59名(36%)参与者和对照组72名(43%)参与者接受了抗抑郁药物处方(OR,0.8;95% CI,0.5至1.2;P = 0.3)。206名参与者(幸存者的69%)有2年随访时的GDS得分:此时,97名干预组参与者中的41名(42%)和109名对照组参与者中的54名(50%)GDS得分提示有抑郁症(OR,0.7;95% CI,0.4至1.3;P = 0.3)。比较干预组和对照组参与者,2年随访时GDS变化得分的均值无显著差异(-2.4±标准差3.7 vs -2.1±标准差3.6;P = 0.5),2年期间诊所就诊次数均值(1.8±标准差3.1 vs 1.6±标准差2.8;P = 0.5)或住院次数均值(1.1±标准差1.6 vs 1.0±标准差1.4;P = 0.8)也无显著差异。初始GDS得分>11的参与者中,干预组参与者(n = 13)GDS得分的平均变化为-5.6±标准差3.9,对照组参与者(n = 21)为-3.4±标准差4.5。对组间基线特征差异进行校正不影响结果。
在老年初级保健患者的2年随访期内,我们未能证明抑郁症病例筛查有任何益处。需要开展研究以确定病例筛查结合更强化的患者教育和随访是否会改善初级保健抑郁症患者的结局。