ArticleBMC psychiatry2011
Outcomes for depression and anxiety in primary care and details of treatment: a naturalistic longitudinal study.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Two-Year Vitamin BNutrients · 2016Trial
- Vitamin D supplementation to prevent depression and poor physical function in older adults: Study protocol of the D-Vitaal study, a randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial.BMC geriatrics · 2015Trial
- A Randomized Pilot Study of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy to Improve Social Support for Veterans with PTSD.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Personalized prognostic prediction of treatment outcome for depressed patients in a naturalistic psychiatric hospital setting: A comparison of machine learning approaches.Journal of consulting and clinical psychology · 2020Article
- Experiential avoidance as a mediator of the association between posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and social support: A longitudinal analysis.Psychological trauma : theory, research, practice and policy · 2019Article
- Clinical Pharmacology ofEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2018Review
- German general practitioners' self-reported management of patients with chronic depression.BMC psychiatry · 2017Article
- Anxiety and diabetes: Innovative approaches to management in primary care.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2016Review
- Generalized anxiety disorder in primary care: mental health services use and treatment adequacy.BMC family practice · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is little evidence as to whether or not guideline concordant care in general practice results in better clinical outcomes for people with anxiety and depression. This study aims to determine possible associations between guideline concordant care and clinical outcomes in general practice patients with depression and anxiety, and identify patient and treatment characteristics associated with clinical improvement.
methodsThis study forms part of the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA).Adult patients, recruited in general practice (67 GPs), were interviewed to assess DSM-IV diagnoses during baseline assessment of NESDA, and also completed questionnaires measuring symptom severity, received care, socio-demographic variables and social support both at baseline and 12 months later. The definition of guideline adherence was based on an algorithm on care received. Information on guideline adherence was obtained from GP medical records.
results721 patients with a current (6-month recency) anxiety or depressive disorder participated. While patients who received guideline concordant care (N=281) suffered from more severe symptoms than patients who received non-guideline concordant care (N=440), both groups showed equal improvement in their depressive or anxiety symptoms after 12 months. Patients who (still) had moderate or severe symptoms at follow-up, were more often unemployed, had smaller personal networks and more severe depressive symptoms at baseline than patients with mild symptoms at follow-up. The particular type of treatment followed made no difference to clinical outcomes.
conclusionThe added value of guideline concordant care could not be demonstrated in this study. Symptom severity, employment status, social support and comorbidity of anxiety and depression all play a role in poor clinical outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.