Suppr超能文献

基层医疗中抑郁症或焦虑症患者的心理健康专家视频咨询与常规治疗对比:随机对照可行性试验

Mental Health Specialist Video Consultations Versus Treatment-as-Usual for Patients With Depression or Anxiety Disorders in Primary Care: Randomized Controlled Feasibility Trial.

作者信息

Tönnies Justus, Hartmann Mechthild, Wensing Michel, Szecsenyi Joachim, Peters-Klimm Frank, Brinster Regina, Weber Dorothea, Vomhof Markus, Icks Andrea, Friederich Hans-Christoph, Haun Markus W

机构信息

Department of General Internal Medicine and Psychosomatics, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.

Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.

出版信息

JMIR Ment Health. 2021 Mar 12;8(3):e22569. doi: 10.2196/22569.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Most people affected by depression or anxiety disorders are treated solely by their primary care physician. Access to specialized mental health care is impeded by patients' comorbidity and immobility in aging societies and long waiting times at the providers' end. Video-based integrated care models may leverage limited resources more efficiently and provide timely specialized care in primary care settings.

OBJECTIVE

The study aims to evaluate the feasibility of mental health specialist video consultations with primary care patients with depression or anxiety disorders.

METHODS

Participants were recruited by their primary care physicians during regular practice visits. Patients who had experienced at least moderate symptoms of depression and/or anxiety disorders were considered eligible for the study. Patients were randomized into 2 groups receiving either treatment-as-usual as provided by their general practitioner or up to 5 video consultations conducted by a mental health specialist. Video consultations focused on systematic diagnosis and proactive monitoring using validated clinical rating scales, the establishment of an effective working alliance, and a stepped-care algorithm within integrated care adjusting treatments based on clinical outcomes. Feasibility outcomes were recruitment, rate of loss to follow-up, acceptability of treatment, and attendance at sessions. Effectiveness outcomes included depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7), burden of specific somatic complaints (Somatic Symptom Disorder-B Criteria Scale-12), recovery (Recovery Assessment Scale-German [RAS-G]), and perception of chronic illness care (Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care), which were measured at baseline and 16 weeks postallocation by assessors blinded to the group allocation.

RESULTS

A total of 50 patients with depression and/or anxiety disorders were randomized, 23 in the intervention group and 27 in the treatment-as-usual group. The recruitment yield (number randomized per number screened) and the consent rate (number randomized per number eligible) were 69% (50/73) and 86% (50/58), respectively. Regarding acceptability, 87% (20/23) of the participants in the intervention group completed the intervention. Of the 108 planned video consultations, 102 (94.4%) were delivered. Follow-up rates were 96% (22/23) and 85% (23/27) for the intervention and control groups, respectively. The change from baseline scores at postmeasurement for the No Domination by Symptoms domain of recovery (RAS-G) was somewhat higher in the intervention group than in the control group (Mann-Whitney U test: rank-biserial r=0.19; 95% CI -0.09 to 0.46; P=.18). We did not detect any notable differences between the intervention and control groups in terms of other effectiveness outcomes. We did not observe any serious adverse events related to the trial.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention and study procedures were found to be feasible for patients, primary care practice staff, and mental health specialists. A sufficiently powered pragmatic trial on mental health specialist video consultations should be conducted to investigate their effectiveness in routine care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00015812; https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00015812.

摘要

背景

大多数抑郁症或焦虑症患者仅由其初级保健医生进行治疗。在老龄化社会中,患者的合并症和行动不便以及医疗机构端的长时间等待阻碍了他们获得专科心理健康护理。基于视频的综合护理模式可以更有效地利用有限资源,并在初级保健环境中提供及时的专科护理。

目的

本研究旨在评估心理健康专家与患有抑郁症或焦虑症的初级保健患者进行视频咨询的可行性。

方法

参与者由其初级保健医生在常规诊疗时招募。经历过至少中度抑郁症和/或焦虑症症状的患者被认为符合研究条件。患者被随机分为两组,一组接受全科医生提供的常规治疗,另一组接受心理健康专家进行的多达5次视频咨询。视频咨询侧重于使用经过验证的临床评定量表进行系统诊断和主动监测、建立有效的工作联盟以及综合护理中的逐步护理算法,根据临床结果调整治疗。可行性结果包括招募情况、失访率、治疗的可接受性以及会诊出勤率。有效性结果包括抑郁(患者健康问卷-9)、焦虑(广泛性焦虑障碍-7)、特定躯体不适负担(躯体症状障碍-B标准量表-12)、康复(康复评估量表-德语版[RAS-G])以及慢性病护理认知(患者慢性病护理评估),这些指标在基线时以及分配后16周由对分组不知情的评估人员进行测量。

结果

共有50名患有抑郁症和/或焦虑症的患者被随机分组,干预组23名,常规治疗组27名。招募率(随机分组人数/筛查人数)和同意率(随机分组人数/符合条件人数)分别为69%(50/73)和86%(50/58)。在可接受性方面,干预组87%(20/23)的参与者完成了干预。在计划的108次视频咨询中,进行了102次(94.4%)。干预组和对照组的随访率分别为96%(22/23)和85%(23/27)。干预组康复(RAS-G)的症状无主导领域测量值与基线分数相比的变化略高于对照组(曼-惠特尼U检验:等级相关系数r=0.19;95%CI -0.09至0.46;P=0.18)。在其他有效性结果方面,我们未发现干预组和对照组之间有任何显著差异。我们未观察到与试验相关的任何严重不良事件。

结论

干预措施和研究程序对患者、初级保健机构工作人员和心理健康专家而言是可行的。应开展一项样本量充足的关于心理健康专家视频咨询的实用性试验,以研究其在常规护理中的有效性。

试验注册

德国临床试验注册中心DRKS00015812;https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00015812

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7633/7998325/349c7feee142/mental_v8i3e22569_fig1.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验