GO TO CMA Home
GO TO Inside CMA
GO TO Advocacy and Communications
GO TO Member Services
GO TO Publications
GO TO Professional Development
GO TO Clinical Resources

GO TO What's New
GO TO Contact CMA
GO TO Web Site Search
GO TO Web Site Map


CMAJ
CMAJ - July 13, 1999JAMC - le 13 juillet 1999

Effectiveness of an educational strategy to improve family physicians' detection and management of depression: a randomized controlled trial

Graham Worrall,*‡ MB BS, MSc; John Angel,† MD; Paul Chaulk,‡ MSc; Cordell Clarke,‡ MSc; Megan Robbins,‡ BSc

CMAJ 1999;161:37-40

See also:
Contents
Abstract

Background: Depression, a common disorder often treated by family physicians, may be both underdiagnosed and undertreated. The objective of this study was to determine whether the diagnosis and treatment of depression by family physicians could be improved through an educational strategy.

Methods: In this study, conducted between July and December 1997, 42 family physicians in Newfoundland were randomly assigned to an intervention group (3-hour case-based educational session on clinical practice guidelines [CPGs] for depression and access to a psychiatrist for consultation) or to a control group (receipt of CPGs without educational session or access to the psychiatrist). Physicians were asked to keep a log of patients with newly diagnosed depression and to record information on severity of depression, medications and referrals to mental health professionals. Patients were asked to complete the Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) scale before treatment and after 6 months of follow-up. The primary outcome measure was the "gain" score (difference between first and last CES-D scores).

Results: During the study period physicians in the intervention group diagnosed 91 new cases of depression (mean 4.1 per physician) and those in the control group diagnosed 56 (mean 2.8 per physician); the difference was not significant. Most patients (91.2% in the intervention group and 89.3% in the control group received a prescription for an antidepressant on their first visit. Similar proportions (46.2% in the intervention group and 37.5% in the control group) took their medication for the full 6 months; however, significantly more patients in the intervention group were taking an antidepressant at the 6-month follow-up (56% v. 39.3%, p = 0.02). The mean number of visits per patient was similar in the 2 groups (7.7 in the intervention group and 7.6 in the control group). Physicians in the intervention group consulted the psychiatrist 9 times. The overall rate of referrals to psychiatrists and other mental health professionals was 10.9%; however, referrals were significantly higher in the intervention group (15.4% v. 3.5%, p = 0.05). After 6 months of follow-up, a significant difference in gain scores was detected between the intervention and control groups for both the patient's self-rated CES-D scores (mean gain score 19.3 v. 15.5 respectively, p = 0.04) and the physicians' ratings of depression severity before treatment and at 6 months (mean gain 1.1 v. 0.7 respectively, p = 0.02).

Interpretation: The educational strategy had a modest beneficial effect on the outcomes of patients with depression, but there are still concerns regarding the low rates of drug treatment and referral to mental health professionals by family physicians.

[Contents]

Depression is a common disorder often treated by family physicians.1,2,3,4 In Canada depression is related to about 60% of suicides5 and causes an annual loss of 123 000 potential life-years, with an estimated cost of $1.6 billion per year.6 The annual incidence of major depression is at least 2.5 cases per 1000 primary care patients.7 According to the 1994­1995 Canadian National Population Health Survey, 6% of adults had a major depressive episode in a 1-year period, and only 43% of those affected contacted a health care professional.8 Given the prevalence of depression and the fact that it often goes unrecognized9 and untreated,10 better detection and treatment strategies would be of enormous benefit.11,12,13

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are developed using explicit principles of evidence review.14,15 However, there is uncertainty concerning the ideal way to introduce guidelines into clinical practice16 and, once introduced, how effective they actually are.17 Guidelines are more likely to be effective if they are easily accessible and involve an educational component18 and if more than one guideline implementation strategy is used.19 The use of CPGs by physicians may improve patient care,16 but whether these improvements lead to lasting positive results remains to be determined.20

The objective of our study was to assess whether a workshop on CPGs and the provision of follow-up consults with a psychiatrist improved the process of care and outcomes for patients with depression diagnosed by their family physician.

[Contents]

Methods

This study was approved by the Human Investigations Committee of Memorial University of Newfoundland. After a 3-month pilot project, 42 fee-for-service physicians, members of a family practice research network, were recruited. The physicians were assigned to the intervention or control group by the use of random number tables. The design of the randomized controlled trial is depicted in Fig. 1. To avoid possible contamination, only one physician per practice was included in the study, and to avoid cointervention, only one physician in each town was recruited (except St. John's).

Physicians in the intervention group attended a small educational workshop where they were introduced to the CPGs formulated by the Canadian Medical Association for the detection and treatment of depression.21 Workshops were led by a psychiatrist with a special interest in treating depression in the community (J.A.) and an academic family physician (G.W.) and were attended by physicians in groups of 2­4. The 3-hour session included information on the epidemiology of depression, an explanation of the CPGs and a discussion of prepared cases. Physicians were also invited to discuss their own cases with reference to specific difficulties they had in diagnosing and treating depression. In addition to the workshop, a psychiatrist was readily available for advice on patient management at a specific time each week.

Family physicians in the control group were mailed a copy of the CPGs but were given no specific instructions on their use. They did not attend an educational workshop, and they were not paired with the consulting psychiatrist.

All physicians were asked to keep a log of new cases of depression diagnosed during the study period and were contacted regularly by a research assistant to encourage protocol compliance. The diagnosis was subjective; each patient was rated on a 4-point ordinal scale (4 = severe depression, 1 = absence of depressive symptoms). Physicians were asked to explain the study protocol to each patient, to obtain informed consent from each patient and to recruit them for the 6-month duration of the study.

All patients with depression were treated as usual. If they gave informed consent once the study was explained, they completed the Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) scale,22 a 20-item self-report questionnaire. The threshold score for depression on the CES-D scale is 16. The physician also completed a symptom checklist for each patient. In addition to the 2 major and 7 minor diagnostic criteria listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV),23 4 other dummy variables were included in the checklist in random order.

For the 6 months following diagnosis, the physicians recorded the number of office visits during the acute phase (first 3 months) and the continuation phase (3­6 months) of the illness and all information regarding antidepressant medication. Physicians also noted any referrals made to a psychiatrist or other mental health professional.

At the end of the 6-month period, each patient completed the CES-D again and a "gain" score (the difference in score since the first visit) was calculated. This was the primary outcome measure for the study; a higher gain score indicated greater improvement in the patient's condition. Physicians also rated (on the ordinal scale) the patient's condition at this time and a physician gain score was calculated.

Descriptive statistics on age, sex and number of years in practice for each physician, as well as the type (group or solo) and location (urban or rural) of each practice, the age and sex of each patient and end points were compiled. Means were compared using t-tests and Fisher's exact tests, and proportions were compared using chi2 tests. Given the physician sample size, there was enough power to detect a mean difference of 3.6 points in the CES-D gain score, a mean difference of 0.6 in the ordinal gain score and a mean difference of 0.9 in the DSM-IV symptoms recorded by physicians (alpha = 0.05, ß = 0.2). Similarly, assuming a mean of 8 diagnoses (standard deviation [SD] 2.0) per physician, there was power to detect a difference of 1.6 diagnoses.

[Contents]

Results

There were no significant differences between physicians in the intervention group (n = 22) and those in the control group (n = 20) in mean number of years in practice or practice location. The number of female patients did not differ between the intervention and the control groups (60 [65.9%] and 43 [76.8%] respectively). The mean age of patients in the intervention group was 43.2 and in the control group, 45.7 (p = 0.03).

Physicians in the intervention group diagnosed 91 new cases of depression (mean 4.1 [SD 3.2] per physician), and those in the control group diagnosed 56 (mean 2.8 [SD 3.6] per physician); the difference was not significant. Using DSM-IV criteria, physicians in the intervention group and the control group correctly diagnosed similar numbers of cases (93.4% and 94.6% respectively). There were no significant differences between physicians in the number of major and minor diagnostic criteria assigned per patient, nor were there differences in the mean number of office visits per patient (Table 1).

Eighty-three (91.2%) of the patients in the intervention group and 50 (89.3%) in the control group were given a prescription for an antidepressant at the first office visit. The proportion of patients in each group who took medication for the full 6 months was similar (46.2% in the intervention group and 37.5% in the control group), but more patients in the intervention group were taking antidepressants at the 6-month follow-up visit (56.0% v. 39.3%, p = 0.02).

The study psychiatrist was consulted by physicians in the intervention group a total of 9 times during the study. Only 8 (5.4%) of the 147 patients were referred to a psychi-atrist (6 in the intervention group and 2 in the control group; difference not significant). There were 8 referrals to other mental health professionals, all made by physicians in the intervention group. In total, 14 patients in the intervention group and 2 in the control group were referred elsewhere (p = 0.05).

Before treatment the mean CES-D score for patients did not differ significantly between groups (Table 1). The mean scores at 6 months were lower overall but again did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. However, the resulting mean gain scores for patients in the intervention group were significantly higher than those for patients in the control group (p = 0.04). A significant difference between the 2 groups was also detected in the mean gain scores for physicians' ratings of depression severity (p = 0.02).

[Contents]

Interpretation

The results of our study suggest that it is possible to change physicians' behaviour and improve patient care with a relatively simple educational intervention based on CPGs for managing depression. Significant differences between gain scores calculated from patients' self-ratings and the ratings of physicians indicated that the patients in the intervention group improved more than those in the control group. Gain scores have been used to measure improvement in the psychological condition of patients in other studies as well.24,25

There were several nonsignificant but encouraging trends in this study. Similar to the results of others,24,26 physicians who received the educational intervention diagnosed depression more often than physicians in the control group. Also in accordance with the results of others,25,26,27 a greater proportion of patients in the intervention group took their medication for the duration of the study. It was concerning, however, that 44% of the patients in the intervention group and 61% of those in the control group were not taking antidepressants at the end of the study. We are uncertain why this was the case, but perhaps the type of depression treated by family physicians is of shorter duration and lesser severity than that seen by psychiatrists.28

The psychiatrist available to physicians in the intervention group received 9 calls. Although it is rare for a psychiatrist to receive direct calls from family physicians, many of the physicians were pleased to meet the psychiatrist and said that the personal contact reinforced their confidence in dealing with difficult cases of depression.

Strengths of this study included the randomized design, the primary care setting and the attempt to measure not only the process but also the outcome of care. Our study had limitations as well. It is often difficult to assess one's own behaviour without bias; however, we designed the study with outcome variables that we felt would be recorded accurately and validly in the charts. It is also possible that the behaviour of the patients was influenced by the Hawthorne effect — the tendency for subjects to perform better when they know they are being observed. If this was the case, the differences between the groups would have been reduced. Finally, the duration of the study was short; we are following these patients for a longer period to determine whether the beneficial effects of treatment are maintained.

Although patients of physicians in the intervention group benefited, less than half of the patient population remained on antidepressant medication for the full 6 months of the study, and the rate of referral to a psychiatrist was only about 5%. These rates seem low and are areas of concern in the treatment of patients with depression.

This work was primarily supported by a grant from the Medical Research Council of Canada. We received support for the workshops from Solvay-Kingswood Ltd., and we received unrestricted educational grants from Eli Lilly Co. and Pfizer Canada Inc.

Competing interests: None declared.

[Contents]

Comments Send a letter to the editor
Envoyez une lettre à la rédaction

From the Departments of *Family Medicine and †Psychiatry, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Nfld., and ‡the Centre for Rural Health Studies, Whitbourne, Nfld.

This article has been peer reviewed.

Reprint requests to: Dr. Graham Worrall, Newhook Community Health Centre, Whitbourne NF AOB 3KO; fax 709 759-2387; gworrall@morgan.ucs.mun.ca

References
  1. Prestige BR, Lake CR. Prevalence and recognition of depression among primary care outpatients. J Fam Pract 1987;25:67-72. [MEDLINE]
  2. Weissman MM, Myers JK. Affective disorders in a US urban community: the use of research diagnostic criteria in an epidemiological survey. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1978;35:1304-11. [MEDLINE]
  3. Zung W. The role of rating scales in the identification and management of the depressed patient in the primary care setting. J Clin Psychiatry 1990; 51(Suppl 6):72-6. [MEDLINE]
  4. Katon W. The epidemiology of depression in medical care. Int J Psychiatry Med 1987;17:93-112. [MEDLINE]
  5. Mao Y, Hasselback P, Davies VW, Nichol R, Wigle DT. Suicide in Canada: an epidemiological assessment. Can J Public Health 1990;81(4):324-8. [MEDLINE]
  6. Studemire A, Frank R, Hedemark N. The economic burden of depression. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 1986;8:387-94. [MEDLINE]
  7. Murphy J, Olivier D, Monson R, Sobol A, Leighton A. Incidence of depression and anxiety: the Stirling County Study. Am J Public Health 1988;78(5):534-40. [MEDLINE]
  8. Diverty B, Beaudet MP. Depression: An undertreated disorder? Health Rep 1997;8(4):9-17.
  9. Michell-Heggs N. Aspects of the natural history and clinical presentation of depression. Proc R Soc Med 1971;64:1171-8. [MEDLINE]
  10. Zung WWK, King RE. Identification and treatment of masked depression in a general medical practice. J Clin Psychiatry 1983;44:365-8. [MEDLINE]
  11. Priority-Setting Group Council on Health Care Technology, Institute of Medicine. Comparison on priority-setting criteria. In: Lara ME, Goodman C, editors. National priorities for the assessment of clinical conditions and medical technologies: report of a pilot study. Washington: National Academy Press; 1990. p. 77-81.
  12. Committee on Educational Objectives. Emphasis scores and levels of family physician competence for specific diseases. In: Educational objectives for certification in family medicine. Toronto: College of Family Physicians of Canada; 1981. p. 62-85.
  13. Kates N, Craven M, Bishop J, Clinton T, Kraftcheck D, LeClair K, et al. Shared mental health care in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Psychiatric Association; 1997.
  14. Jackson MN, Nutting PA. Clinical guidelines development: opportunities for family physicians. J Fam Pract 1991;33:129-32. [MEDLINE]
  15. Guidelines for doctors in the new world [editorial]. Lancet 1992;339:1197-8. [MEDLINE]
  16. Grimshaw J, Russell IT. Do clinical guidelines influence medical practice? Aberdeen (UK): Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen; 1992. Occasional paper 13.
  17. Emslie C, Grimshaw J, Templeton A. Do clinical guidelines improve general practice management and referral of infertile couples? BMJ 1993;306:1728-31. [MEDLINE]
  18. Haynes R, Davis D, McKibbon A, Tugwell P. A critical appraisal of the efficacy of continuing medical education. JAMA 1984;251:61-4. [MEDLINE]
  19. Wensing M, Van der Weijden T, Grol R. Implementing guidelines and innovations in general practice: Which interventions are effective? Br J Gen Pract 1998;48:991-7. [MEDLINE]
  20. Worrall G, Chaulk P, Freake D. The effects of clinical practice guidelines on patient outcomes in primary care: a systematic review. CMAJ 1997;156(12):1705-12. [MEDLINE]
  21. Reesal R, Vincent P. Depression: diagnosis in primary care. CMA disease management/patient counselling series. Toronto: Grosvenor House Press; 1992.
  22. Radloff LS. The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas 1977;1(3):385-401.
  23. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic criteria from DSM-IV. Washington: The Association; 1994. p. 161-72.
  24. Hannaford PC, Thompson C, Simpson M. Evaluation of an educational programme to improve the recognition of psychological illness by general practitioners. Br J Gen Pract 1996;46:333-7. [MEDLINE]
  25. Katon W, Von Korrf M, Lin E, Walker E, Simon GE, Bush T. Collaborative management to achieve treatment guidelines. JAMA 1995;273:1026-31. [MEDLINE]
  26. Callaghan CM, Hendrie HC, Dittus RS, Brater DC, Hui SL, Tierney WL. Improving treatment of depression in primary care: a randomized clinical trial. J Am Geriatr Soc 1994;42:839-46. [MEDLINE]
  27. Kendrick T, Burns T, Freeling P. Randomized controlled trial of teaching general practitioners to carry out structured assessments of their long term mentally ill patients. BMJ 1995;311:93-8. [MEDLINE]
  28. Johnstone A, Goldberg D. Psychiatric screening in general practice. Lancet 1976;1:605-8. [MEDLINE]

© 1999 Canadian Medical Association (text and abstract)