Trial reportBMC psychiatry2013
Systematic depression screening in high-risk patients attending primary care: a pragmatic cluster-randomized trial.
Trial report in BMC psychiatry, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01662817 (Effectiveness of Physicians' Education, Implementation and Follow up of Current Recommendations Regarding Screening for Major Depressive Disorder in High Risk Patients on Improving the Under-Recognition Rates of Depression in Primary Care), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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.
Effectiveness of Physicians' Education, Implementation and Follow up of Current Recommendations Regarding Screening for Major Depressive Disorder in High Risk Patients on Improving the Under-Recognition Rates of Depression in Primary Care
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Interventions to improve the detection of depression in primary healthcare: systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Interventions to Increase Depression Treatment Initiation in Primary Care Patients: a Systematic Review.Journal of general internal medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Effectiveness of Implementation Strategies for Non-communicable Disease Guidelines in Primary Health Care.Journal of general internal medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Trial
- Improving the precision of depression diagnosis in general practice: a cluster-randomized trial.BMC family practice · 2021Trial
- Collaborative care for depression in general practice: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.Trials · 2017Trial
- Effectiveness of health checkup with depression screening on depression treatment and outcomes in middle-aged and older adults: a target trial emulation study.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2024Article
- Psychometric properties of screening questionnaires to detect depression in primary healthcare setting in rural Ethiopia.BMC primary care · 2022Article
- The Impact of Systematic Depression Screening in Primary Care on Depression Identification and Treatment in a Large Health Care System: A Cohort Study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2020Article
- Relationships between obesity management and depression management in a university-based family medicine center.Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSystematic screening for depression in high-risk patients is recommended but remains controversial. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of such screening in everyday clinical practice on depression recognition.
methodsA pragmatic, cluster randomized, controlled study that randomized primary care physicians (PCPs) in Spain either to an intervention or control group. The intervention group (35-PCPs) received training in depression screening and used depression screening routinely for at least 6 months. The control group (34-PCPs) managed depression in their usual manner. Adherence to (1-6; never-very frequently), feasibility (1-4; unfeasible-very feasible), and acceptance (1-5; very poor-very good) of the screening were evaluated. Underrecognition (primary outcome) and undertreatment rates of major depressive disorder (MDD) in the two groups were compared 6 months after randomization in a random sample of 3737 patients assigned to these PCPs using logistic regression adjusting for the clustering effect.
resultsNo significant differences were found for recognition rates (58.0% vs. 48.1% intervention vs. control; OR [95%CI] 1.40 [0.73-2.68], p = 0.309). The undertreatment rate did not differ significantly either (p = 0.390). The mean adherence to depression screening was 4.4 ± 1.0 ('occasionally'), the mean feasibility was 3.1 ± 0.5 ('moderately feasible'), and the mean acceptance was 4.2 ± 0.6 ('good').
conclusionsThis research was not able to show effectiveness of the systematic screening for MDD in high-risk patients on depression recognition in primary care. The poor adherence to screening implementation could partially explain the results. These reflect the difficulties of putting into practice the clinical guidelines usually based on interventional research.
trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT01662817.
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.