BMJ 1995;311:1274-1276 (11 November)

General practice

Twelve month outcome of depression in general practice: does detection or disclosure make a difference?

Christopher Dowrick, senior lecturer,a Iain Buchan, honorary lecturer in clinical mathematics and computing b

a Department of Primary Care, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3BX, b Department of Medicine, University of Liverpool

Correspondence to: Dr Dowrick.

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the extent to which the outcome of depression among primary care attenders may be affected by medical diagnosis or by feedback of questionnaire results in unrecognised cases.
Design: Prospective 12 month study including a randomised controlled trial of the effects of disclosure, with data on depression status and clinical management collected by questionnaire and interview.
Setting: Two group practices in north Liverpool.
Subjects: 1099/1444 (76%) consecutive adult attenders completed the Beck depression inventory, of whom 179 with scores of at least 14 were followed up.
Interventions: Disclosure of a random 45% (52/116) of depression scores to general practitioners for subjects whose depression was undetected.
Main outcome measures: Depression status estimated by depression score at start of study and at six and 12 months, with subsample validation against ICD-10 criteria.
Results: Questionnaire response rates were 76% (136/179) at six months and 68% (122/179) at 12 months and were higher for women than men. The median depression score was 19 (interquartile range 15 to 22) initially, decreasing to 16 (11 to 23) at 12 months. The median depression score decreased significantly (two sided test, P=0.019) in subjects whose depression was unrecognised at the index consultation but increased in those whose depression had been detected by their general practitioners. Disclosure of cases of unrecognised depression to general practitioners had no effect on outcome. Intention to treat was associated with a worse prognosis, although only a minority of subjects received adequate treatment.
Conclusions: Disclosure of undetected depression did not improve prognosis. A diagnosis of depression in general practice should be considered simply as a marker of its severity. 

----------------------------------------------------
Key messages
----------------------------------------------------
* Research into the outcome of depression in
general practice has yielded conflicting results

* The effect on outcome of diagnosis by, or
disclosure of depression to, general practitioners
is unclear

* This study shows that prognosis for depressive
illness is poor and that neither diagnosis nor
disclosure of depression has an appreciable
impact on outcome

* A diagnosis of depression should be seen
simply as a marker of the severity of the
depression


Introduction

Research into the outcome of depression in general practice has yielded conflicting results. Some studies have reported 12 month recovery rates of over two thirds for new cases,1 2 while others have found minimal improvement on self report scales3 4 and high rates of relapse.5 At least 12% of cases are likely to become chronic.6 Prognosis may be worse if the depression is severe7 or long standing before treatment.8 Life events and difficulties, including physical illness,9 may be more predictive than clinical risk factors of the chronicity of depression.10

The effect of diagnosis by, or disclosure of depression to, general practitioners is also unclear.11 Medical consultation, diagnosis, or prescription of psychotropic drugs were not significant factors in determining recovery from neurotic illness in an epidemiological study in Camberwell.12 In a Dutch study, by contrast, subjects whose depression was recognised by their general practitioner had a better outcome in terms of both psychological and social functioning than those whose depression went unrecognised.13 Disclosure of unrecognised psychological morbidity to general practitioners was associated with reduction in duration and severity in two controlled trials,14 15 while a third trial could show no such effect.4 These findings are sufficiently ambiguous to warrant further investigation.

Method

We undertook a prospective study during 1993-4 of the 12 month outcome of episodes of depressive illness in general practice attenders. This incorporated a randomised controlled trial of the effects of disclosure of unrecognised depression.

The setting was two group practices in north Liverpool comprising nine general practitioners and 18000 patients. One practice was based in a relatively affluent area with a low Townsend deprivation score of -1.4, while the other was based in a deprived inner city area with a high Townsend score of 5.4.16 We assessed the doctors' knowledge of managing depression through semistructured questionnaires. We invited consecutive attenders aged 16-64 years to participate in the study. Those who agreed completed there and then the Beck depression inventory,17 a well established self report instrument designed to track depression over time, whose weighting towards cognitive rather than somatic manifestations of depression is beneficial in settings where patients may present with physical symptoms.18 19 We compared the responses of participants with encounter sheets on which the general practitioners noted whether they considered the same patients to be not depressed, probably depressed, or definitely depressed. The doctors were not aware of the Beck depression scores at this stage.

RECRUITMENT

The threshold for recruitment was a depression score of 14, higher than in previous studies3 20 21 to increase specificity. Subjects with a score of 35 or above, or who were clearly suicidal, were made known to their general practitioner and excluded from the study. Recruitment continued until 116 subjects had been identified at or above threshold who had not been diagnosed as depressed by their general practitioners. These were randomly subdivided on a 6:5 ratio to allow later diagnoses to be discerned in assessing changes in depression status: the depression scores for 64 (55%) of the subjects were not disclosed to the doctors, while the scores for the remaining 52 (45%) were disclosed. The method of disclosure was twofold. Each doctor was given a sealed envelope with forms containing details of the relevant patient's name, age, and depression score with diagnostic interpretation. In addition, the depression score and interpretation was recorded in the patient's medical notes.

A further 63 subjects, rated probably depressed or definitely depressed by their general practitioners and with a depression score at or above threshold, were randomly allocated to a control group of "detected" subjects.

We offered a random 40% of subjects from each of the three study groups a semistructured interview within two weeks of recruitment to validate the depression scores. The diagnostic reference criteria according to the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10)) were those of depressive episode (F32) and recurrent depressive disorder (F33).22 23 We followed up the subjects with postal depression inventories 9with up to three reminders) at six months. At 12 months, postal inventories were sent to all the subjects, and the subset was reinterviewed.

The general practitioners' clinical notes on these subjects were reviewed for information on intention to treat depression. Any record of treatment with antidepressant drugs, referral to a mental health specialist (psychiatrists, psychologists, psychotherapists, or counsellors), or discussion of depression with the subject was included as intention to treat. Intention was graded as 0 (none), 1 (possible), or 2 (definite).

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Sample sizes were calculated with 80% power to detect a difference of 15% on depression score with a 5% probability of detecting a false effect ((alpha)). The size of each group was increased to allow for a 33% dropout over 12 months, and a 20% later detection rate in the group whose scores were undisclosed. The data for the subjects completing the inventory on all three occasions were analysed and median scores within and between the study groups were compared. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to make unpaired comparisons between groups and Wilcoxon's signed ranks test was used to analyse the paired differences within groups. Confidence intervals for differences were constructed with appropriate nonparametric methods.24

Results

RESPONSE

In all, 1099/1444 (76%) eligible subjects responded to the initial questionnaire, of whom 179 were recruited for the study. The response rates of subjects to postal questionnaires were 76% (136/179) at six months and 68% (122/179) at 12 months. In all, 114 (64%) subjects completed the Beck depression inventory on all three occasions. There was a pronounced sex difference in response: 96/127 (76%) women responded at 12 months compared with only 25/52 (48%) men. The odds ratio for this was 3.34 (Gart's 95% confidence interval 1.60 to 6.96), Fisher's two sided test of probability P<0.001. Interviews were offered to 76 subjects, of whom 59 (78%) accepted; of these, 45 (76%) agreed to be reinterviewed at the end of the study. Data from medical records were obtained for 173 (97%) subjects.

DEPRESSION OUTCOMES

The initial median depression score for the 114 full respondents in the whole study was 19 (interquartile range 15 to 22); 31 of these subjects had a depression score of 25 or higher. Diagnostic interviews with 39 of the full respondents found that 38 fulfilled the criteria according to ICD-10 for at least mild depression, while 16 were rated as severely depressed.

Table I shows the changes in depression scores over the 12 months of the study. The median depression score had decreased by just two points at six months and by three points over the 12 months of the study. These changes were, however, both significant. Only 21 subjects had scores less than 10 (indicating low probability of depression) at six months, and 19 had scores less than 10 at 12 months. The number of subjects with scores of 25 or higher, however, rose to 24 at six and 12 months. On ICD-10 criteria 30/39 subjects who were reinterviewed were still at least mildly depressed, while the number rated severely depressed had increased to 18. 


TABLE I--Median depression scores* (interquartile range) and median differences from scores at start of
study (95% confidence interval; P value+) for full respondents, by study group
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    At start of
Group                                                  study            At six months                   At 12 months
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Depression not disclosed (n=46)                   18 (15 to 21)         16 (13 to 19)                   14 (11 to 19)
Median difference from score at start of study                      -1.5 (-3.5 to 0.5; 0.1532)     -3 (-5.5 to -0.5; 0.0186)
Depression disclosed (n=33)                       18 (16 to 21)         17 (8 to 23)                    15 (10 to 22)
Median difference from score at start of study                       -2.5 (-3.5 to 0; 0.0723)        -3 (-6 to 0; 0.0616)
Depression diagnosed (n=35)                       21 (16 to 25)         21 (14 to 30)                   22 (14 to 29)
Median difference from score at start of study                       0 (-2.5 to 3.5; 0.9804)        1.5 (-1 to 4; 0.2535)
All subjects (n=114)                              19 (15 to 22)         17 (12 to 24)                   16 (11 to 23)
Median difference from score at start of study                      -1.5 (-2.5 to 0; 0.0633)       -1.5 (-3 to 0; 0.0488)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*On Beck depression inventory. +Two sided test.

Disclosure of depression status to the general practitioners had no discernible effect on depression scores (table I). The median score decreased in each group of initially undiagnosed subjects: by three points in the group whose depression status was disclosed and by four points in the group whose status was undisclosed; significant differences were found only in the latter group. In contrast, the median score increased by one point over 12 months among those subjects whose depression was initially diagnosed by the general practitioners. This increase was not significant.

Table II shows the differences in median depression scores between study groups. No significant differences were found between the subjects whose depression status was disclosed and those whose status was undisclosed. The differences between the subjects who had been diagnosed and those who had not, however, increased at both six and 12 months, with a difference of seven points (95% CI=3 points to 11 points) at 12 months. 


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE II--Differences in median depression scores* (95% confidence interval; P value+) between study
groups and over time
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Groups compared                                  At start of study     At six months           At 12 months
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Depression not disclosed v disclosed            0 (-2 to 2; 0.8808)  -1 (-4 to 3; 0.7462)    0 (-3 to 4; 0.9247)
Depression not diagnosed v diagnosed           -2 (-4 to 0; 0.0632)  -5 (-1 to -8; 0.0199)  -7 (-3 to -11; 0.0018)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*On Beck depression inventory. +Two sided test.

The same effects within and between the groups were observed when the data were reanalysed to exclude 13 subjects whose status had not been disclosed who were subsequently diagnosed as depressed by their general practitioners.

MANAGEMENT OF DEPRESSION

In their initial accounts of managing depression the general practitioners showed a clear understanding of treatment strategies. All nine reported using doses of antidepressant drugs in line with the British National Formulary.25 Eight doctors said that they would follow up patients for up to six months; the remaining doctor referred patients to a psychiatrist if they did not improve after one month. All the doctors were aware of several specialist options for referral. A discrepancy existed, however, between these accounts and their clinical practice as recorded in the medical case notes.

We categorised 109 of the full responders in terms of the general practitioners' intention to treat. There was no evidence of intention to treat in 62 cases, possible intention in 20, and definite intention in 27. Intention to treat, however, was associated with a worse outcome as measured by the 12 month change in median depression score (table III). Kendall's rank correlation showed a significant interdependence of scores and intention to treat categories (two sided test, P=0.014 (adjusted for ties)). 


TABLE III--Median depression scores* (interquartile range) over time
by "intention to treat" group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group                                  Start of study      At 12 months
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No intention to treat (n=62)           18 (16 to 21)       14 (10 to 29)
Possible intention to treat (n=20)     17 (13 to 22)       19 (12 to 25)
Definite intention to treat (n=27)     22 (17 to 27)       22 (11 to 30)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*On Beck depression inventory.

For the 60 subjects who received treatment, those taking antidepressant drugs and counselling had greater median improvements in depression score than those whose treatment consisted simply of a discussion with the general practitioner, but there were too few in each category to allow adequate statistical comparisons.

Discussion

This study had several limitations. Using three point data to represent the outcome of a disorder which has a fluctuating course meant that we could not detect changes in depression status that may have occurred between the three time frames. The depression scores were validated against clinical criteria of depression in only one third of cases. Over one third of study subjects did not respond to all three questionnaires, and the rate was particularly low for men. More generally, screening processes of this type are difficult to blind. All screened subjects, whether experimental or control, are more aware of psychiatric symptoms and are more likely to report them if asked to complete such a questionnaire; doctors will also have a higher index of suspicion. In addition, the clinical researcher was not blind to the group status of the subjects, and this could have led to selection bias at the diagnostic interview.

Nevertheless, we conclude that the prognosis for depressive illness was poor, and that neither diagnosis by general practitioners nor disclosure to them of the depression scores in cases in which depression had not been recognised had an appreciable impact on the six or 12 month outcome. Indeed the subjects whose depression was diagnosed and for whom there was an identifiable intention to treat tended to have a worse result than those whose condition remained unrecognised. The small proportion of cases in which adequate treatment was provided makes it difficult to assess the effects of such treatment despite the benefits of drug and non-drug treatments reported elsewhere.26 The data also pose the question of whether poor outcome was affected by a tendency to select frequent attenders with a higher than average probability of physical or social problems, leading to increased levels of life events and difficulties.27 This offers a potential explanation for the differences found between outcome studies (including this one) starting from a prevalence sample3 4 5 and those based on an incidence sample of "new" cases.1 2 It also suggests that a diagnosis of depression should be seen simply as a marker of the severity of the depression, an epiphenomenon in the natural course of a condition whose major determinants may lie outside the reach of the medical profession.

We are grateful for the cooperation of the doctors, staff, and patients from the two general practices participating in this study. We thank Professor J Copeland for advice on the design of the research and Drs P Campion, C May, and J Manning for helpful discussion.

Funding: None.

Conflict of interest: None.

  1. Johnson DAW, Mellor V. The severity of depression in patients treated in general practice. Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 1977;27:419-22.
  2. Wright AF, Anderson AJB. newly identified psychiatric illness in one general practice: 12 month outcome and the influence of patients' personality. Br J Gen Pract 1995;45:83-8. [Medline]
  3. Parker G, Homes S, Manicavasagar V. Depression in general practice attenders. J Affec Disord 1986;10:27-35. [Medline]
  4. Magruder-Habib KM, Zung WWK, Feussner JR. Management of general medical patients with symptoms of depression. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 1989;11:201-7. [Medline]
  5. Leenstra AS, Ormel J, Giel R. Positive life change and recovery from depression and anxiety: a three stage longitudinal study of primary care attenders. Br J Psychiatry 1995;166:333-43. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Dunn G, Skuse D. The natural history of depression in general practice. Psychol Med 1981;11:755-64. [Medline]
  7. Brodaty H. Brief psychotherapy in general practice: a controlled prospective intervention trial [MD thesis]. Sydney: University of New South Wales, 1983.
  8. Scott J, Eccleston D, Boys R. Can we predict the persistence of depression? Br J Psychiatry 1992;161:633-7.
  9. Schulberg H, McClelland M, Burns B. Six months outcomes for medical patients with major depressive disorders. J Gen Intern Med 1987;2:312-7. [Medline]
  10. Brown GW, Moran P. Clinical and psychosocial origins of chronic depressive episodes. I: a community survey. Br J Psychiatry 1994;165:447-56. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Dowrick C. Does testing for depression influence diagnosis or management by general practitioners? Fam Pract 1995 (in press).
  12. Bebbington P, Hurry J, Tennant C, Sturt E, Wing J. Epidemiology of mental disorders in Camberwell. Psychological Medicine 1981;11:561-81. [Medline]
  13. Ormel J, Giel R. Medical effects of nonrecognition of affective disorders in primary care. In: Sartorius N, Goldberg D, de Girolamo G, Costa e Silva J, Lecrubier Y, Wittchen W. Psychological disorders in general medical settings. Toronto: Hogrefe and Huber, 1990:146-58.
  14. Johnstone A, Goldberg D. Psychiatric screening in general practice. Lancet 1976;i:605-8.
  15. Zung WWK, Magill M, Moore JT, George DT. Recognition and treatment of depression in a family medicine practice. J Clin Psychiatry 1983;44:3-6. [Medline]
  16. Hutchinson A, Foy C, Sandhu B. Comparison of two scores for allocating resources to doctors in deprived areas. BMJ 1989;299:1142-4.
  17. Beck AT, Steer RA. The Beck depression inventory manual. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1987.
  18. Wilkin D, Hallam L, Dogget M. Measures of need and outcome for primary care. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992:80-5.
  19. Sartorius N, Ban TA, eds. Assessment of depression. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1986.
  20. Salkind MR. The Beck depression inventory in general practice. Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 1969;18:267-71.
  21. Nielsen AC, Williams TA. Depression in ambulatory medical patients, prevalence by self-report questionnaire and recognition by non-psychiatric physicians. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1980;37:999-1004.
  22. World Health Organisation. International classification of diseases, tenth revision. Geneva: WHO, 1990.
  23. Ustun TB, Goldberg D, Cooper J, Simon GE, Sartorius N. New classification for mental disorders with management guidelines for use in primary care: ICD-10 PCH Chapter 5. Br J Gen Pract 1995;435:211-5.
  24. Conover W. Practical nonparametric statistics. John Wiley: Chichester, 1980.
  25. British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. British National Formulary. London: BMA, RPSGB, 1992. (No 24.)
  26. Freemantle N, Long A, Mason J, Sheldon T, Song F, Watson P, et al. Effective Health Care Bulletin No 5. The treatment of depression in primary care. Leeds: School of Public Health, 1993.
  27. Brown GW, Moran P. Clinical and psychosocial origins of chronic depressive episodes. I: A community survey. Br J Psych 1994;165:447-56.
(Accepted 19 October 1995)


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Management of depression in UK general practice in relation to scores on depression severity questionnaires: analysis of medical record data
Tony Kendrick, Christopher Dowrick, Anita McBride, Amanda Howe, Pamela Clarke, Sue Maisey, Michael Moore, and Peter W Smith
BMJ 2009 338: b750. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Should we screen for depression?
Simon Gilbody, Trevor Sheldon, and Simon Wessely
BMJ 2006 332: 1027-1030. [Full Text] [PDF]

Effect of detection of depression in general practice
David Goldberg
BMJ 1996 312: 512. [Extract] [Full Text]

Patients may be receiving inadequate treatment
Alan Currie and Ann Ryman
BMJ 1996 312: 512. [Extract] [Full Text]

Study had methodological limitations
Paulo Menezes, Glyn Lewis, and Deborah Sharp
BMJ 1996 312: 512-513. [Extract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Kendrick, T., Dowrick, C., McBride, A., Howe, A., Clarke, P., Maisey, S., Moore, M., Smith, P. W (2009). Management of depression in UK general practice in relation to scores on depression severity questionnaires: analysis of medical record data. BMJ 338: b750-b750 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Wittkampf, K A, van Zwieten, M, Smits, F T., Schene, A H, Huyser, J, van Weert, H C (2008). Patients' view on screening for depression in general practice. Fam Pract 25: 438-444 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Anderson, I., Ferrier, I., Baldwin, R., Cowen, P., Howard, L, Lewis, G, Matthews, K, McAllister-Williams, R., Peveler, R., Scott, J, Tylee, A (2008). Evidence-based guidelines for treating depressive disorders with antidepressants: A revision of the 2000 British Association for Psychopharmacology guidelines. J Psychopharmacol 22: 343-396 [Abstract]  
  • Gilbody, S. DPhil, Sheldon, T. DSc, House, A. DM (2008). Screening and case-finding instruments for depression: a meta-analysis. CMAJ 178: 997-1003 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Guyatt, G. H., Ferrans, C. E., Halyard, M. Y., Revicki, D. A., Symonds, T. L., Varricchio, C. G., Kotzeva, A., Valderas, J. M., Alonso, J. L., Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group, (2007). Exploration of the Value of Health-Related Quality-of-Life Information From Clinical Research and Into Clinical Practice. Mayo Clin Proc. 82: 1229-1239 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Cornford, C. S., Hill, A., Reilly, J. (2007). How patients with depressive symptoms view their condition: a qualitative study. Fam Pract 24: 358-364 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Brent, D. A. (2006). Screens and Doors: The Management of Adolescent Depression in Primary Care. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 160: 755-756 [Full text]  
  • Gilbody, S., Sheldon, T., Wessely, S. (2006). Should we screen for depression?. BMJ 332: 1027-1030 [Full text]  
  • Whitty, P., Gilbody, S. (2005). NICE, but will they help people with depression? The new National Institute for Clinical Excellence depression guidelines. Br. J. Psychiatry 186: 177-178 [Full text]  
  • Asarnow, J. R., Jaycox, L. H., Duan, N., LaBorde, A. P., Rea, M. M., Murray, P., Anderson, M., Landon, C., Tang, L., Wells, K. B. (2005). Effectiveness of a Quality Improvement Intervention for Adolescent Depression in Primary Care Clinics: A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA 293: 311-319 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Dickinson, L. M., Rost, K., Nutting, P. A., Elliott, C. E., Keeley, R. D., Pincus, H. (2005). RCT of a Care Manager Intervention for Major Depression in Primary Care: 2-Year Costs for Patients With Physical vs Psychological Complaints. Ann Fam Med 3: 15-22 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Simon, G. E., Fleck, M., Lucas, R., Bushnell, D. M., LIDO Group, (2004). Prevalence and Predictors of Depression Treatment in an International Primary Care Study. Am. J. Psychiatry 161: 1626-1634 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Little, P., Dorward, M., Warner, G., Moore, M., Stephens, K., Senior, J., Kendrick, T. (2004). Randomised controlled trial of effect of leaflets to empower patients in consultations in primary care. BMJ 328: 441- [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Oslin, D. W., Sayers, S., Ross, J., Kane, V., Ten Have, T., Conigliaro, J., Cornelius, J. (2003). Disease Management for Depression and At-Risk Drinking Via Telephone in an Older Population of Veterans. Psychosom. Med. 65: 931-937 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Churchill, R., Rost, K. (2003). Enhanced primary care may encourage remission in depression. Evid. Based Ment. Health 6: 47-47 [Full text]  
  • Gilbody, S M, Whitty, P M, Grimshaw, J M, Thomas, R E (2003). Improving the detection and management of depression in primary care. Qual Saf Health Care 12: 149-155 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Peveler, R., Kendrick, T. (2001). Treatment delivery and guidelines in primary care: Depression and public health. Br Med Bull 57: 193-206 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Gilbody, S. M, House, A. O, Sheldon, T. A (2001). Routinely administered questionnaires for depression and anxiety: systematic review. BMJ 322: 406-409 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Whooley, M. A., Simon, G. E. (2000). Managing Depression in Medical Outpatients. NEJM 343: 1942-1950 [Full text]  
  • Hunkeler, E. M., Meresman, J. F., Hargreaves, W. A., Fireman, B., Berman, W. H., Kirsch, A. J., Groebe, J., Hurt, S. W., Braden, P., Getzell, M., Feigenbaum, P. A., Peng, T., Salzer, M. (2000). Efficacy of Nurse Telehealth Care and Peer Support in Augmenting Treatment of Depression in Primary Care. Arch Fam Med 9: 700-708 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Katzelnick, D. J., Simon, G. E., Pearson, S. D., Manning, W. G., Helstad, C. P., Henk, H. J., Cole, S. M., Lin, E. H. B., Taylor, L. H., Kobak, K. A. (2000). Randomized Trial of a Depression Management Program in High Utilizers of Medical Care. Arch Fam Med 9: 345-351 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Simon, G. E, VonKorff, M., Rutter, C., Wagner, E. (2000). Randomised trial of monitoring, feedback, and management of care by telephone to improve treatment of depression in primary care. BMJ 320: 550-554 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Rost, K., Nutting, P., Smith, J., Coyne, J. C., Cooper-Patrick, L., Rubenstein, L. (2000). The Role of Competing Demands in the Treatment Provided Primary Care Patients With Major Depression. Arch Fam Med 9: 150-154 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Anderson, I. M., Nutt, D. J., Deakin, J. F. W. (2000). Evidence-based guidelines for treating depressive disorders with antidepressants: a revision of the 1993 British Association for Psychopharmacology guidelines. J Psychopharmacol 14: 3-20 [Abstract]  
  • Lamberts, H., Okkes, I. (1999). PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC ALCOHOL ABUSE IN DUTCH FAMILY PRACTICES. Alcohol Alcohol 34: 337-345 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Kessler, D., Lloyd, K., Lewis, G., Gray, D. P., Heath, I. (1999). Cross sectional study of symptom attribution and recognition of depression and anxiety in primary care • Commentary: There must be limits to the medicalisation of human distress. BMJ 318: 436-440 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Schulberg, H. C., Katon, W., Simon, G. E., Rush, A. J. (1998). Treating Major Depression in Primary Care Practice: An Update of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research Practice Guidelines. Arch Gen Psychiatry 55: 1121-1127 [Abstract] [Full text]  
Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ