Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; St Mary's Research Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2015 May-Jun;37(3):257-65. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2015.03.007. Epub 2015 Mar 18.
The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of use of a depression self-care toolkit with and without lay telephone coaching among primary care patients 40 years and older with depressive symptoms and comorbid chronic physical conditions.
A single blind, individually randomized, pragmatic trial of a depression self-care toolkit (Toolkit) with or without lay telephone coaching was conducted among primary care adults with depressive symptoms and comorbid chronic physical conditions. Eligible patients were randomized to receive the Toolkit with (intervention) or without (control) telephone coaching provided by trained lay coaches. The primary outcome was depression severity [Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9)] at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were self-efficacy, satisfaction, and use of health services at 6 months.
A total of 223 patients were randomized, and 172 (77.1%) completed 6-month follow-ups. PHQ-9 scores improved significantly in both groups over the 6-month follow-up; the differences in PHQ-9 scores between intervention and control groups were statistically significant at 3 months [effect size = 0.44; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.16-0.72] but not at 6 months (effect size = 0.24; 95% CI = -0.01 to 0.60). Patients with moderate depression severity (PHQ-9 10-19) and high self-efficacy at baseline were most likely to benefit from the intervention. There was no significant effect of the intervention on the secondary outcomes.
The incremental value of lay telephone coaching of a Toolkit appears short-lived. Targeting of coaching to those with moderate depression severity may be indicated.
本研究旨在比较在 40 岁及以上伴有抑郁症状和共病慢性躯体疾病的初级保健患者中使用抑郁自助工具包并辅以非专业电话辅导与仅使用自助工具包的效果。
对伴有抑郁症状和共病慢性躯体疾病的初级保健成年人进行了一项关于抑郁自助工具包(工具包)与有无非专业电话辅导的单盲、个体随机、实用试验。符合条件的患者被随机分配接受工具包(干预组)或无电话辅导(对照组),电话辅导由经过培训的非专业辅导员提供。主要结局是 6 个月时的抑郁严重程度[患者健康问卷(PHQ-9)]。次要结局是 6 个月时的自我效能感、满意度和卫生服务利用情况。
共随机分配了 223 名患者,其中 172 名(77.1%)完成了 6 个月的随访。两组在 6 个月的随访中 PHQ-9 评分均显著改善;干预组和对照组之间的 PHQ-9 评分差异在 3 个月时具有统计学意义(效应量=0.44;95%置信区间[CI]:0.16-0.72),但在 6 个月时无统计学意义(效应量=0.24;95%CI:-0.01 至 0.60)。基线时抑郁严重程度中度(PHQ-9 10-19)和自我效能高的患者最有可能从干预中获益。干预对次要结局无显著影响。
非专业电话辅导工具包的增量价值似乎是短暂的。针对中度抑郁严重程度的患者进行辅导可能是有必要的。