Department of Psychiatry, VU University Medical Center and GGZ inGeest, AJ Ernststraat 1187, Amsterdam 1081 HL, The Netherlands.
BMC Psychiatry. 2012 Nov 22;12:206. doi: 10.1186/1471-244X-12-206.
Anxiety disorders are highly prevalent in primary care and cause a substantial burden of disease. Screening on risk status, followed by preventive interventions in those at risk may prevent the onset of anxiety disorders, and thereby reduce the disease burden. The willingness to participate in screening and interventions is crucial for the scope of preventive strategies, but unknown. This feasibility study, therefore, investigated participation rates of screening and preventive services for anxiety disorders in primary care, and explored reasons to refrain from screening.
In three general practices, screening was offered to individuals visiting their general practitioner (total n = 2454). To assess risk status, a 10-item questionnaire was followed by a telephone interview (including the CIDI) when scoring above a predefined threshold. Preventive services were offered to those at risk. Participation rates for screening and preventive services for anxiety disorders were assessed. Those not willing to be screened were asked for their main reason to refrain from screening.
Of all individuals, 17.3% participated in initial screening, and of those with a possible risk status, 56.0% continued screening. In 30.1% of those assessed, a risk status to develop an anxiety disorder was verified. Of these, 22.6% already received some form of mental health treatment and 38.7% of them agreed to participate in a preventive intervention and were referred. The most frequently mentioned reasons to refrain from screening were the emotional burden associated with elevated risk status, the assumption not to be at risk, and a lack of motivation to act upon an elevated risk status by using preventive services.
Screening in general practice, followed by offering services to prevent anxiety disorders in those at risk did not appear to be a feasible strategy due to low participation rates. To enable the development of feasible and cost-effective preventive strategies, exploring the reasons of low participation rates, considering involving general practitioners in preventive strategies, and looking at preventive strategies in somatic health care with proven feasibility may be helpful.
焦虑障碍在初级保健中发病率很高,会导致大量疾病负担。对风险状况进行筛查,然后对风险人群进行预防性干预,可能会预防焦虑障碍的发生,从而减轻疾病负担。参与筛查和干预的意愿对于预防策略的范围至关重要,但目前尚不清楚。因此,这项可行性研究调查了初级保健中焦虑障碍筛查和预防服务的参与率,并探讨了拒绝筛查的原因。
在三家全科诊所中,向就诊于全科医生的个体(总 n=2454)提供筛查。为评估风险状况,首先使用 10 项问卷进行筛查,如果得分高于预设阈值,则进行电话访谈(包括 CIDI)。对有风险的个体提供预防服务。评估焦虑障碍筛查和预防服务的参与率。对不愿接受筛查的个体,询问其拒绝筛查的主要原因。
所有个体中,有 17.3%接受了初始筛查,在可能存在风险的个体中,有 56.0%继续进行筛查。在 30.1%评估的个体中,确定存在发生焦虑障碍的风险。其中,22.6%已经接受了某种形式的心理健康治疗,38.7%的人同意接受预防性干预并被转介。拒绝筛查的最常见原因是与升高的风险状况相关的情绪负担、认为自己没有风险,以及缺乏利用预防性服务对升高的风险状况采取行动的动机。
由于参与率低,在初级保健中进行筛查,然后为风险人群提供预防焦虑障碍的服务似乎不是一种可行的策略。为了制定可行且具有成本效益的预防策略,探索低参与率的原因,考虑让全科医生参与预防策略,并研究具有已证实可行性的躯体保健中的预防策略,可能会有所帮助。