联合会诊在一个结构化的gp -病人-老年病学-精神科医生模型的晚年抑郁症:一个集群随机对照试验。

IF 2.6 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Lars Christian Kvalbein-Olsen, Eivind Aakhus, Ole Rikard Haavet, Ibrahimu Mdala, Erik L Werner
{"title":"联合会诊在一个结构化的gp -病人-老年病学-精神科医生模型的晚年抑郁症:一个集群随机对照试验。","authors":"Lars Christian Kvalbein-Olsen, Eivind Aakhus, Ole Rikard Haavet, Ibrahimu Mdala, Erik L Werner","doi":"10.1186/s12875-025-03002-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Depression in older adults is mainly treated in general practice but is often constrained by limited resources in primary healthcare services and suboptimal access to assistance from specialized care. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a structured collaborative model between GPs and geriatric psychiatrists compared to standard follow-up for individuals aged ≥ 65 with depression.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with moderate depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9] scores of 10-19) were invited to participate in a cluster-randomized controlled trial evaluating a structured collaborative intervention model involving GPs and geriatric psychiatrists. The core component of the intervention consisted of two consecutive joint consultations with the GP, patient, and geriatric psychiatrist, supplemented by individual GP-patient consultations. PHQ-9 assessments were conducted at baseline and at 6, 12, and 18 months. The primary outcome was a ≥ 50% reduction in PHQ-9 scores.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>35 general practitioners initially agreed to participate, yet only 19 managed to recruit one or more depressed patients. Consequently, a total of 34 patients were enrolled in the study, with 30 providing survey responses during the follow-up period for subsequent analysis. Binary analysis (≥ 50% symptom reduction) showed a greater likelihood of improvement in the intervention group compared to the control, though this difference did not reach statistical significance. Notably, both groups showed significant mean PHQ-9 score reductions (3.4 and 4.0, respectively) at 18 months, but differences in mean PHQ-9 scores between the groups across all time points were not statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study did not yield significant results for the collaborative model implemented. Major challenges in the recruitment process likely contributed to the low participation rate, which may explain the absence of positive findings.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The study was registered the 15.09.2019 in ClinicalTrials.gov with ID: NCT04078282.</p>","PeriodicalId":72428,"journal":{"name":"BMC primary care","volume":"26 1","pages":"297"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12482570/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Joint consultations in a structured GP-patient-geriatric-psychiatrist model for late-life depression: a cluster RCT.\",\"authors\":\"Lars Christian Kvalbein-Olsen, Eivind Aakhus, Ole Rikard Haavet, Ibrahimu Mdala, Erik L Werner\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12875-025-03002-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Depression in older adults is mainly treated in general practice but is often constrained by limited resources in primary healthcare services and suboptimal access to assistance from specialized care. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a structured collaborative model between GPs and geriatric psychiatrists compared to standard follow-up for individuals aged ≥ 65 with depression.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with moderate depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9] scores of 10-19) were invited to participate in a cluster-randomized controlled trial evaluating a structured collaborative intervention model involving GPs and geriatric psychiatrists. The core component of the intervention consisted of two consecutive joint consultations with the GP, patient, and geriatric psychiatrist, supplemented by individual GP-patient consultations. PHQ-9 assessments were conducted at baseline and at 6, 12, and 18 months. The primary outcome was a ≥ 50% reduction in PHQ-9 scores.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>35 general practitioners initially agreed to participate, yet only 19 managed to recruit one or more depressed patients. Consequently, a total of 34 patients were enrolled in the study, with 30 providing survey responses during the follow-up period for subsequent analysis. Binary analysis (≥ 50% symptom reduction) showed a greater likelihood of improvement in the intervention group compared to the control, though this difference did not reach statistical significance. Notably, both groups showed significant mean PHQ-9 score reductions (3.4 and 4.0, respectively) at 18 months, but differences in mean PHQ-9 scores between the groups across all time points were not statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study did not yield significant results for the collaborative model implemented. Major challenges in the recruitment process likely contributed to the low participation rate, which may explain the absence of positive findings.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The study was registered the 15.09.2019 in ClinicalTrials.gov with ID: NCT04078282.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72428,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC primary care\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"297\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12482570/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC primary care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-025-03002-w\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC primary care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-025-03002-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:老年人抑郁症主要在全科医生中治疗,但往往受到初级卫生保健服务资源有限和获得专业护理援助的次优机会的限制。本研究旨在评估全科医生和老年精神科医生之间的结构化合作模式与65岁以上抑郁症患者的标准随访相比的有效性。方法:邀请有中度抑郁症状的患者(患者健康问卷-9 [PHQ-9]得分为10-19分)参加一项集群随机对照试验,评估一种由全科医生和老年精神科医生参与的结构化协作干预模式。干预的核心组成部分包括与全科医生、患者和老年精神科医生的连续两次联合会诊,辅以个人全科医生和患者的会诊。PHQ-9评估分别在基线和6、12、18个月进行。主要终点为PHQ-9评分降低≥50%。结果:35名全科医生最初同意参与,但只有19名成功招募了一名或多名抑郁症患者。因此,共有34名患者入组研究,其中30名患者在随访期间提供调查反馈,以供后续分析。二元分析(症状减轻≥50%)显示干预组与对照组相比改善的可能性更大,尽管这种差异没有达到统计学意义。值得注意的是,两组在18个月时平均PHQ-9评分均显著降低(分别为3.4和4.0),但各组间各时间点的平均PHQ-9评分差异无统计学意义。结论:本研究对实施的协作模式没有产生显著的结果。征聘过程中的重大挑战可能是导致参与率低的原因,这可能是没有积极结果的原因。试验注册:该研究于2019年9月15日在ClinicalTrials.gov注册,ID: NCT04078282。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Joint consultations in a structured GP-patient-geriatric-psychiatrist model for late-life depression: a cluster RCT.

Joint consultations in a structured GP-patient-geriatric-psychiatrist model for late-life depression: a cluster RCT.

Joint consultations in a structured GP-patient-geriatric-psychiatrist model for late-life depression: a cluster RCT.

Joint consultations in a structured GP-patient-geriatric-psychiatrist model for late-life depression: a cluster RCT.

Background: Depression in older adults is mainly treated in general practice but is often constrained by limited resources in primary healthcare services and suboptimal access to assistance from specialized care. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a structured collaborative model between GPs and geriatric psychiatrists compared to standard follow-up for individuals aged ≥ 65 with depression.

Methods: Patients with moderate depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9] scores of 10-19) were invited to participate in a cluster-randomized controlled trial evaluating a structured collaborative intervention model involving GPs and geriatric psychiatrists. The core component of the intervention consisted of two consecutive joint consultations with the GP, patient, and geriatric psychiatrist, supplemented by individual GP-patient consultations. PHQ-9 assessments were conducted at baseline and at 6, 12, and 18 months. The primary outcome was a ≥ 50% reduction in PHQ-9 scores.

Results: 35 general practitioners initially agreed to participate, yet only 19 managed to recruit one or more depressed patients. Consequently, a total of 34 patients were enrolled in the study, with 30 providing survey responses during the follow-up period for subsequent analysis. Binary analysis (≥ 50% symptom reduction) showed a greater likelihood of improvement in the intervention group compared to the control, though this difference did not reach statistical significance. Notably, both groups showed significant mean PHQ-9 score reductions (3.4 and 4.0, respectively) at 18 months, but differences in mean PHQ-9 scores between the groups across all time points were not statistically significant.

Conclusion: This study did not yield significant results for the collaborative model implemented. Major challenges in the recruitment process likely contributed to the low participation rate, which may explain the absence of positive findings.

Trial registration: The study was registered the 15.09.2019 in ClinicalTrials.gov with ID: NCT04078282.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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