Management of depression in UK general practice in relation to scores on depression severity questionnaires: analysis of medical record data

Objective To determine if general practitioner rates of antidepressant drug prescribing and referrals to specialist services for depression vary in line with patients’ scores on depression severity questionnaires. Design Analysis of anonymised medical record data. Setting 38 general practices in three sites—Southampton, Liverpool, and Norfolk. Data reviewed Records for 2294 patients assessed with severity questionnaires for depression between April 2006 and March 2007 inclusive. Main outcome measures Rates of prescribing of antidepressants and referrals to specialist mental health or social services. Results 1658 patients were assessed with the 9 item patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9), 584 with the depression subscale of the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS), and 52 with the Beck depression inventory, 2nd edition (BDI-II). Overall, 79.1% of patients assessed with either PHQ-9 or HADS received a prescription for an antidepressant, and 22.8% were referred to specialist services. Prescriptions and referrals were significantly associated with higher severity scores. However, overall rates of treatment and referral were similar for patients assessed with either measure despite the fact that, with PHQ-9, 83.5% of patients were classified as moderately to severely depressed and in need of treatment, whereas only 55.6% of patients were so classified with HADS. Rates of treatment were lower for older patients and for patients with comorbid physical illness (including coronary heart disease and diabetes) despite the fact that screening for depression among such patients is encouraged in the quality and outcomes framework. Conclusions General practitioners do not decide on drug treatment or referral for depression on the basis of questionnaire scores alone, but also take account of other factors such as age and physical illness. The two most widely used severity questionnaires perform inconsistently in practice, suggesting that changing the recommended threshold scores for intervention might make the measures more valid, more consistent with practitioners’ clinical judgment, and more acceptable to practitioners as a way of classifying patients.

[1]  R. Spitzer,et al.  The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. , 2001, Journal of general internal medicine.

[2]  C. Dowrick,et al.  Patients’ and doctors’ views on depression severity questionnaires incentivised in UK quality and outcomes framework: qualitative study , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[3]  R. Snaith,et al.  The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale , 1983 .

[4]  K. Freedland,et al.  The prevalence of comorbid depression in adults with diabetes: a meta-analysis. , 2001, Diabetes care.

[5]  C. Herrmann-Lingen,et al.  Depression as a Risk Factor for Mortality in Patients With Coronary Heart Disease: A Meta-analysis , 2004, Psychosomatic medicine.

[6]  A. Mykletun,et al.  The hospital anxiety and depression rating scale: A cross-sectional study of psychometrics and case finding abilities in general practice , 2005, BMC psychiatry.

[7]  J. Crawford,et al.  Psychometric comparison of PHQ-9 and HADS for measuring depression severity in primary care. , 2008, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[8]  Michael J. Campbell,et al.  Effects of a clinical-practice guideline and practice-based education on detection and outcome of depression in primary care: Hampshire Depression Project randomised controlled trial , 2000, The Lancet.

[9]  A. Kinmonth,et al.  Dimensional perspective on the recognition of depressive symptoms in primary care , 2001, British Journal of Psychiatry.

[10]  Wayne Katon,et al.  The Effectiveness of Depression Care Management on Diabetes-Related Outcomes in Older Patients , 2004, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[11]  T. Kendrick,et al.  GP treatment decisions for patients with depression: an observational study. , 2005, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[12]  Sandra Eldridge,et al.  Patterns of intra-cluster correlation from primary care research to inform study design and analysis. , 2004, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[13]  Nice Depression: management of depression in primary and secondary care , 2005 .

[14]  Psychometric evaluation of the Beck Depression Inventory-II with primary care medical patients. , 2001 .

[15]  P. Noël,et al.  Is this patient clinically depressed? , 2002, JAMA.

[16]  R. Spitzer,et al.  The PHQ-9 , 2001, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[17]  J. Deakin,et al.  Evidence-based guidelines for treating depressive disorders with antidepressants: a revision of the 1993 British Association for Psychopharmacology guidelines , 2000 .

[18]  P. Barczak,et al.  Psychiatric screening in general practice: comparison of the general health questionnaire and the hospital anxiety depression scale. , 1988, The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[19]  C. Dowrick,et al.  Twelve month outcome of depression in general practice: does detection or disclosure make a difference? , 1995, BMJ.

[20]  A. Dhar,et al.  National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence , 2005 .

[21]  D. Veale,et al.  National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health , 2006 .

[22]  Stephan Zipfel,et al.  Comparative validity of three screening questionnaires for DSM-IV depressive disorders and physicians' diagnoses. , 2004, Journal of affective disorders.

[23]  M. Barkham,et al.  Diagnosing depression in primary care using self-completed instruments: UK validation of PHQ-9 and CORE-OM. , 2007, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.