Huibers M J H, Beurskens A J H M, Bleijenberg G, van Schayck C P
Maastricht University, Department of Clinical Psychological Science, P.O. Box 616, Maastricht, Netherlands, 6200 MD.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Jul 18;2007(3):CD003494. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003494.pub2.
Many patients visit their general practitioner (GP) because of problems that are psychosocial in origin. However, for many of these problems there is no evidence-based treatment available in primary care, and these patients place time-consuming demands on their GP. Therefore, GPs could benefit from tools to help these patients more effectively and efficiently. In this light, it is important to assess whether structured psychosocial interventions might be an appropriate tool for GPs. Previous reviews have shown that psychosocial interventions in primary care seem more effective than usual care. However, these interventions were mostly performed by health professionals other than the GP.
To examine the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions by general practitioners by assessing the clinical outcomes and the methodological quality of selected studies.
The search was conducted using the CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References on 20/10/2005, The Cochrane Library, reference lists of relevant studies for citation tracking and personal communication with experts.
Randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and controlled patient preference trials addressing the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions by GPs for any problem or disorder. Studies published before November 2005 were eligible for entry.
Methodological quality was independently assessed by two review authors using the Maastricht-Amsterdam Criteria List. The qualitative and quantitative characteristics of selected trials were independently extracted by two review authors using a standardised data extraction form. Levels of evidence were used to determine the strength of the evidence available. Results from studies that reported similar interventions and outcome measures were meta-analysed.
Ten studies were included in the review. Selected studies addressed different psychosocial interventions for five distinct disorders or health complaints. There is good evidence that problem-solving treatment by general practitioners is effective for major depression. The evidence concerning the remaining interventions for other health complaints (reattribution or cognitive behavioural group therapy for somatisation, cognitive behavioural therapy for unexplained fatigue, counselling for smoking cessation, behavioural interventions to reduce alcohol reduction) is either limited or conflicting.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In general, there is little available evidence on the use of psychosocial interventions by general practitioners. Of the psychosocial interventions reviewed, problem-solving treatment for depression may offer promise, although a stronger evidence-base is required and the effectiveness in routine practice remains to be demonstrated. More research is required to improve the evidence-base on this subject.
许多患者因心理社会因素导致的问题而去看全科医生(GP)。然而,对于其中许多问题,初级保健中尚无循证治疗方法,并且这些患者给全科医生带来了耗时的需求。因此,全科医生可以从有助于更有效且高效地帮助这些患者的工具中受益。有鉴于此,评估结构化心理社会干预措施是否可能是全科医生适用的工具很重要。以往的综述表明,初级保健中的心理社会干预措施似乎比常规护理更有效。然而,这些干预措施大多由全科医生以外的卫生专业人员实施。
通过评估所选研究的临床结果和方法学质量,来检验全科医生进行的心理社会干预措施的有效性。
于2005年10月20日使用CCDANCTR-研究和CCDANCTR-参考文献、考克兰图书馆、相关研究的参考文献列表进行文献追溯以及与专家进行个人交流来开展检索。
针对全科医生进行的心理社会干预措施对任何问题或疾病的有效性的随机对照试验、对照临床试验和对照患者偏好试验。2005年11月之前发表的研究符合纳入标准。
两位综述作者使用马斯特里赫特-阿姆斯特丹标准列表独立评估方法学质量。两位综述作者使用标准化数据提取表独立提取所选试验的定性和定量特征。证据水平用于确定现有证据的强度。对报告了相似干预措施和结局指标的研究结果进行荟萃分析。
该综述纳入了10项研究。所选研究针对五种不同的疾病或健康问题采用了不同的心理社会干预措施。有充分证据表明,全科医生进行的问题解决疗法对重度抑郁症有效。关于针对其他健康问题的其余干预措施(躯体化的重新归因或认知行为团体治疗、不明原因疲劳的认知行为疗法、戒烟咨询、减少酒精摄入的行为干预)的证据要么有限,要么相互矛盾。
总体而言,关于全科医生使用心理社会干预措施的现有证据很少。在所综述的心理社会干预措施中,抑郁症的问题解决疗法可能有前景,尽管需要更强的证据基础,且其在常规实践中的有效性仍有待证明。需要开展更多研究以完善该主题的证据基础。