Coventry Peter A, Hudson Joanna L, Kontopantelis Evangelos, Archer Janine, Richards David A, Gilbody Simon, Lovell Karina, Dickens Chris, Gask Linda, Waheed Waquas, Bower Peter
Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, Centre for Primary Care and Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Health Psychology Section, Psychology Department, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2014 Sep 29;9(9):e108114. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0108114. eCollection 2014.
Collaborative care is a complex intervention based on chronic disease management models and is effective in the management of depression. However, there is still uncertainty about which components of collaborative care are effective. We used meta-regression to identify factors in collaborative care associated with improvement in patient outcomes (depressive symptoms) and the process of care (use of anti-depressant medication).
Systematic review with meta-regression. The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group trials registers were searched from inception to 9th February 2012. An update was run in the CENTRAL trials database on 29th December 2013. Inclusion criteria were: randomised controlled trials of collaborative care for adults ≥18 years with a primary diagnosis of depression or mixed anxiety and depressive disorder. Random effects meta-regression was used to estimate regression coefficients with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between study level covariates and depressive symptoms and relative risk (95% CI) and anti-depressant use. The association between anti-depressant use and improvement in depression was also explored. Seventy four trials were identified (85 comparisons, across 21,345 participants). Collaborative care that included psychological interventions predicted improvement in depression (β coefficient -0.11, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.01, p = 0.03). Systematic identification of patients (relative risk 1.43, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.81, p = 0.004) and the presence of a chronic physical condition (relative risk 1.32, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.65, p = 0.02) predicted use of anti-depressant medication.
Trials of collaborative care that included psychological treatment, with or without anti-depressant medication, appeared to improve depression more than those without psychological treatment. Trials that used systematic methods to identify patients with depression and also trials that included patients with a chronic physical condition reported improved use of anti-depressant medication. However, these findings are limited by the observational nature of meta-regression, incomplete data reporting, and the use of study aggregates.
协作式照护是一种基于慢性病管理模式的复杂干预措施,在抑郁症管理方面有效。然而,协作式照护的哪些组成部分有效仍存在不确定性。我们使用meta回归来确定协作式照护中与患者结局改善(抑郁症状)和照护过程(抗抑郁药物使用)相关的因素。
进行系统综述并采用meta回归。检索Cochrane协作网抑郁、焦虑与神经症组试验注册库,时间从创建至2012年2月9日。2013年12月29日在CENTRAL试验数据库进行了更新。纳入标准为:针对≥18岁、初步诊断为抑郁症或混合性焦虑抑郁障碍的成年人进行协作式照护的随机对照试验。采用随机效应meta回归来估计研究水平协变量与抑郁症状之间的回归系数及95%置信区间(CI),以及抗抑郁药物使用的相对风险(95%CI)。还探讨了抗抑郁药物使用与抑郁症改善之间的关联。共识别出74项试验(85个比较,涉及21345名参与者)。包含心理干预的协作式照护可预测抑郁症的改善(β系数 -0.11,95%CI -0.20至 -0.01,p = 0.03)。系统识别患者(相对风险1.43,95%CI 1.12至1.81,p = 0.004)以及存在慢性身体疾病(相对风险1.32,95%CI 1.05至1.65,p = 0.02)可预测抗抑郁药物的使用。
包含心理治疗(无论是否使用抗抑郁药物)的协作式照护试验似乎比未进行心理治疗的试验能更好地改善抑郁症。采用系统方法识别抑郁症患者的试验以及纳入患有慢性身体疾病患者的试验报告显示抗抑郁药物的使用有所改善。然而,这些发现受到meta回归的观察性本质、数据报告不完整以及使用研究汇总数据的限制。