Suppr超能文献

一项评估为慢性抑郁症患者提供咨询的有效性和成本效益的随机对照试验。

A randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of counselling patients with chronic depression.

作者信息

Simpson S, Corney R, Fitzgerald P, Beecham J

机构信息

Department of Psychology, University of Greenwich, UK.

出版信息

Health Technol Assess. 2000;4(36):1-83.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of short-term counselling in general practice for patients with chronic depression or combined depression and anxiety, compared with general practitioner (GP) care alone.

DESIGN

A randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation with an initial assessment at randomisation and follow-ups at 6 and 12 months.

SETTING

Nine general practices that were well-established participants of the Derbyshire counselling in general practice scheme, and already had a counsellor in the practice team.

SUBJECTS

Patients were screened at GP practices, and asked to participate if they scored >/= 14 on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), had suffered depression or depression/anxiety for 6 months or more, were aged 18-70 and had no history of drug or alcohol abuse, psychoses or suicidal tendencies.

INTERVENTIONS

The experimental group received usual GP treatment and were also referred to an experienced, well-qualified counsellor attached to their general practice. Of the eight counsellors, two practiced cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and six had a psychodynamic approach. The controls were referred back to their GP for routine treatment. There were no restrictions regarding the treatment that could be used, except that GPs could not refer controls to practice counsellors.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measure was the BDI. Others included the Brief Symptom Inventory, the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems and the Social Adjustment Scale. All tests were given at initial, 6- and 12-month assessments. Comprehensive costs were also estimated, and combined with changes in outcomes to examine between-group differences and whether counselling was more cost-effective than standard GP care.

RESULTS

The trial recruited 181 patients. There was an overall significant improvement in the actual scores over time but no difference between groups or between CBT and psychodynamic counselling approaches at either 6 or 12 months. However, fewer experimental group patients were still 'cases' on the BDI than controls. This difference was statistically significant at 12 months and neared significance at 6 months (using logistic regression with the initial score as a covariate). In addition, most patients were very positive about the counselling and considered it helpful. Visual inspection of the outcomes suggested that more patients with mild or moderate depression at study entry had improved and ceased to be cases, and that more of these patients had become 'non-cases' in the experimental than the control group. However, a multiple regression analysis indicated no significant interactions between group and initial severity of depression. This could be partly due to there being no difference in outcome between the experimental and control group patients who were initially severely depressed and few of these patients ceasing to be cases at follow-up. There were no significant differences in the mean total costs, aggregate costs of services, or any of the service-group costs, except for primary care, between the experimental and control groups over time. The cost-burden to GP practices was significantly higher in the experimental than the control group at 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Although patients were generally appreciative of the counselling received, there was only limited evidence of improved outcomes in those referred to counselling. Stricter referral criteria to exclude the severely depressed may have yielded more conclusive results. It is also difficult to estimate the effect of recruitment by screening rather than GP referral, which may limit the applicability of the results to routine clinical practice, and may have interfered with the normal working alliance established between the GP, patient and counsellor. A patient preference trial may, therefore, have been more appropriate. The results indicated that there were similar improvements for both CBT and psychodynamic counselling, but a

摘要

目的

与仅接受全科医生(GP)护理相比,研究短期咨询在全科医疗中对慢性抑郁症或合并抑郁症与焦虑症患者的有效性和成本效益。

设计

一项随机对照试验和经济评估,随机分组时进行初始评估,6个月和12个月时进行随访。

设置

九个成熟的参与德比郡全科医疗咨询计划的全科诊所,且其执业团队中已有一名咨询师。

研究对象

在全科医生诊所对患者进行筛查,若患者在贝克抑郁量表(BDI)上得分≥14分、患有抑郁症或抑郁/焦虑症达6个月或更长时间、年龄在18 - 70岁且无药物或酒精滥用、精神病或自杀倾向病史,则邀请其参与。

干预措施

实验组接受常规全科医生治疗,并被转介给其所在全科诊所的一名经验丰富、资质良好的咨询师。八位咨询师中,两位采用认知行为疗法(CBT),六位采用心理动力学方法。对照组被转回其全科医生处接受常规治疗。除全科医生不能将对照组患者转介给诊所咨询师外,对可采用的治疗方法没有限制。

结局指标

主要结局指标是BDI。其他指标包括简明症状量表、人际问题量表和社会适应量表。所有测试均在初始、6个月和12个月评估时进行。还估算了综合成本,并与结局变化相结合,以检验组间差异以及咨询是否比标准全科医生护理更具成本效益。

结果

该试验招募了181名患者。随着时间推移,实际得分总体有显著改善,但在6个月或12个月时,组间或CBT与心理动力学咨询方法之间没有差异。然而,实验组中BDI上仍为“病例”的患者比对照组少。这种差异在12个月时具有统计学意义,在6个月时接近显著(使用以初始分数作为协变量的逻辑回归)。此外,大多数患者对咨询非常满意,并认为其有帮助。对结局的直观检查表明,研究开始时患有轻度或中度抑郁症的患者中,更多患者病情改善且不再是病例,并且实验组中这类患者成为“非病例”的人数比对照组更多。然而,多元回归分析表明组与初始抑郁严重程度之间没有显著交互作用。这可能部分是由于最初重度抑郁的实验组和对照组患者结局没有差异,且这些患者在随访时很少不再是病例。随着时间推移,实验组和对照组之间的平均总成本、服务总费用或任何服务组费用(除初级保健外)均无显著差异。6个月时,实验组全科医生诊所的成本负担显著高于对照组。

结论

尽管患者普遍对所接受的咨询表示感激,但转介接受咨询的患者结局改善的证据有限。采用更严格的转介标准以排除重度抑郁症患者可能会得出更具决定性的结果。通过筛查而非全科医生转介进行招募的影响也难以估计,这可能会限制研究结果在常规临床实践中的适用性,并且可能干扰了全科医生、患者和咨询师之间建立的正常工作联盟。因此,进行患者偏好试验可能会更合适。结果表明,CBT和心理动力学咨询都有类似的改善,但……

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验