Collaborative Care Versus Consultation Liaison for Patients With Depression or Anxiety Disorders in General Practice in Denmark: 18-Month Follow-Up From the Collabri Flex Trials

IF 3.3 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Nadja Kehler Curth, Siv Therese Bogevik Bjørkedal, Carsten Hjorthøj, Ursula Brinck-Claussen, Kirstine Bro Jørgensen, Susanne Rosendal, Anders Bo Bojesen, Merete Nordentoft, Lene Falgaard Eplov
{"title":"Collaborative Care Versus Consultation Liaison for Patients With Depression or Anxiety Disorders in General Practice in Denmark: 18-Month Follow-Up From the Collabri Flex Trials","authors":"Nadja Kehler Curth,&nbsp;Siv Therese Bogevik Bjørkedal,&nbsp;Carsten Hjorthøj,&nbsp;Ursula Brinck-Claussen,&nbsp;Kirstine Bro Jørgensen,&nbsp;Susanne Rosendal,&nbsp;Anders Bo Bojesen,&nbsp;Merete Nordentoft,&nbsp;Lene Falgaard Eplov","doi":"10.1155/da/2909617","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n <p><b>Introduction:</b> To our knowledge, no research has reported long-term follow-up results from studies comparing collaborative care to consultation liaison in general practice. We have earlier reported 6-month follow-up. In this article, we report the 18-month follow-up results from the two Danish Collabri Flex studies.</p>\n <p><b>Methods:</b> We compared collaborative care to consultation liaison in two randomized controlled trials for persons with anxiety disorders and depression, respectively. Both interventions sought to improve the quality of depression and anxiety care, but they differed in the extent mental health specialists were involved. As part of the consultation liaison intervention, psychiatrists and care managers could provide advice and suggestions to the general practitioner (GP). In the collaborative care intervention, psychiatrists and care managers could provide advice and suggestions, and care managers could help the GP manage patient care. 18 months after randomization, we collected follow-up data. Outcomes included anxiety symptoms (BAI), depression symptoms (BDI-II), well-being (WHO-5), functional disability (Sheehan Disability Scale), general psychological symptoms (SCL-90-R), and others.</p>\n <p><b>Results:</b> In the depression trial, we found a statistically significant difference in depression symptoms between intervention groups at 18-month follow-up, in favor of collaborative care (4.4, 95%CI 2.8–7.0, <i>p</i> ≤ 0.001). Many other outcomes showed significant differences between groups, such as anxiety symptoms, functional level, well-being, general psychological symptoms, and self-efficacy. In the anxiety trial, we found no statistically significant difference between groups in anxiety symptoms (1.2, 95%CI −0.3–2.7, <i>p</i> ≤ 0.126). In this trial, significant differences between groups were found in outcomes measuring depression symptoms and general psychological symptoms but not in outcomes measuring functional level, well-being or self-efficacy. In both trials, no differences were found between groups on employment/education or sick leave measures. However, the collaborative care group in both trials had fewer contacts with private practicing psychologists during the 18 months follow-up.</p>\n <p><b>Conclusion:</b> At 18-month follow-up, we found a statistically significant difference between allocation groups, when measuring depression symptoms in the depression trial but not when measuring anxiety symptoms in the anxiety trial. Further, the collaborative care intervention may have the potential to reduce referrals to private practicing psychologists, a service that is in high demand in Denmark.</p>\n <p><b>Trial Registration:</b> ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03113175 and NCT03113201</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55179,"journal":{"name":"Depression and Anxiety","volume":"2025 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/da/2909617","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Depression and Anxiety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/da/2909617","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: To our knowledge, no research has reported long-term follow-up results from studies comparing collaborative care to consultation liaison in general practice. We have earlier reported 6-month follow-up. In this article, we report the 18-month follow-up results from the two Danish Collabri Flex studies.

Methods: We compared collaborative care to consultation liaison in two randomized controlled trials for persons with anxiety disorders and depression, respectively. Both interventions sought to improve the quality of depression and anxiety care, but they differed in the extent mental health specialists were involved. As part of the consultation liaison intervention, psychiatrists and care managers could provide advice and suggestions to the general practitioner (GP). In the collaborative care intervention, psychiatrists and care managers could provide advice and suggestions, and care managers could help the GP manage patient care. 18 months after randomization, we collected follow-up data. Outcomes included anxiety symptoms (BAI), depression symptoms (BDI-II), well-being (WHO-5), functional disability (Sheehan Disability Scale), general psychological symptoms (SCL-90-R), and others.

Results: In the depression trial, we found a statistically significant difference in depression symptoms between intervention groups at 18-month follow-up, in favor of collaborative care (4.4, 95%CI 2.8–7.0, p ≤ 0.001). Many other outcomes showed significant differences between groups, such as anxiety symptoms, functional level, well-being, general psychological symptoms, and self-efficacy. In the anxiety trial, we found no statistically significant difference between groups in anxiety symptoms (1.2, 95%CI −0.3–2.7, p ≤ 0.126). In this trial, significant differences between groups were found in outcomes measuring depression symptoms and general psychological symptoms but not in outcomes measuring functional level, well-being or self-efficacy. In both trials, no differences were found between groups on employment/education or sick leave measures. However, the collaborative care group in both trials had fewer contacts with private practicing psychologists during the 18 months follow-up.

Conclusion: At 18-month follow-up, we found a statistically significant difference between allocation groups, when measuring depression symptoms in the depression trial but not when measuring anxiety symptoms in the anxiety trial. Further, the collaborative care intervention may have the potential to reduce referrals to private practicing psychologists, a service that is in high demand in Denmark.

Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03113175 and NCT03113201

Abstract Image

协作护理与咨询联络对抑郁症或焦虑症患者在丹麦的全科医生:从Collabri Flex试验18个月的随访
导言:据我们所知,还没有研究报告了在全科实践中比较合作护理与咨询联络的长期随访结果。我们早前报道过6个月的随访。在本文中,我们报告了两项丹麦Collabri Flex研究的18个月随访结果。方法:在两项随机对照试验中,我们分别对焦虑症和抑郁症患者进行了协作护理和咨询联络的比较。两种干预措施都试图提高抑郁和焦虑护理的质量,但它们在心理健康专家参与的程度上有所不同。作为咨询联络干预的一部分,精神科医生和护理经理可以向全科医生(GP)提供建议和建议。在协同护理干预中,精神科医生和护理管理人员可以提供意见和建议,护理管理人员可以帮助全科医生管理患者的护理。随机分组后18个月,我们收集随访数据。结果包括焦虑症状(BAI)、抑郁症状(BDI-II)、幸福感(WHO-5)、功能障碍(Sheehan残疾量表)、一般心理症状(SCL-90-R)等。结果:在抑郁症试验中,我们发现干预组在18个月随访时抑郁症状有统计学差异,有利于协同护理(4.4,95%CI 2.8-7.0, p≤0.001)。许多其他结果在两组之间显示出显著差异,如焦虑症状、功能水平、幸福感、一般心理症状和自我效能感。在焦虑试验中,我们发现两组间焦虑症状无统计学差异(1.2,95%CI−0.3-2.7,p≤0.126)。在这项试验中,各组之间在测量抑郁症状和一般心理症状的结果中发现了显著差异,但在测量功能水平、幸福感或自我效能的结果中没有发现显著差异。在两项试验中,没有发现两组在就业/教育或病假措施方面存在差异。然而,在18个月的随访中,两项试验中的合作护理组与私人执业心理学家的接触较少。结论:在18个月的随访中,我们发现在抑郁试验中测量抑郁症状,而在焦虑试验中测量焦虑症状时,分配组之间的差异具有统计学意义。此外,合作护理干预可能会减少转介给私人执业心理学家的可能性,这在丹麦是一个高需求的服务。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:NCT03113175和NCT03113201
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Depression and Anxiety
Depression and Anxiety 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
15.00
自引率
1.40%
发文量
81
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Depression and Anxiety is a scientific journal that focuses on the study of mood and anxiety disorders, as well as related phenomena in humans. The journal is dedicated to publishing high-quality research and review articles that contribute to the understanding and treatment of these conditions. The journal places a particular emphasis on articles that contribute to the clinical evaluation and care of individuals affected by mood and anxiety disorders. It prioritizes the publication of treatment-related research and review papers, as well as those that present novel findings that can directly impact clinical practice. The journal's goal is to advance the field by disseminating knowledge that can lead to better diagnosis, treatment, and management of these disorders, ultimately improving the quality of life for those who suffer from them.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信