Trial reportAtencion primaria2016
[Impact of pharmaceutical intervention in preventing relapses in depression in Primary Care].
Trial report in Atencion primaria, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Community Pharmacy-Led Depression Services: Service Components, Outcomes, and Implementation Barriers and Facilitators.Depression and anxiety · 2026Pooled it
- Pharmacy-based management for depression in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Remote pharmaceutical care for patients with rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2021Observational
- Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention to improve medication adherence in people with depressive disorders - MAPDep: a study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.Patient preference and adherence · 2019Article
- Role and impact of pharmacists in Spain: a scoping review.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the long-term impact of a brief pharmacist intervention (PI) compared with usual care (UC) on prevention of depression relapse.
designrandomised controlled clinical trial
settingPrimary Care
participantsOf the 179 depressed patients initiating antidepressants, the 113 whose clinical symptoms had remitted (main definition) at 6 months assessment were selected for this secondary study (PI=58; UC=55).
interventionPI was an interview to promote medication adherence when patients get antidepressants from pharmacy. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Baseline, 3 months, and six-months follow-up assessments were made. The severity of depressive symptoms was evaluated with PHQ9. Patients presenting a remission of symptoms were selected. The patient medical records were reviewed to identify a relapse in the following 12 months by using 4 indicators.
resultsThere was a lower proportion of patients that relapsed in the PI group than in the UC group 18 months after initiation of treatment, but the difference was not statistically significant either in the intent-to-treat analysis (OR=0.734 [95%CI; 0.273-1.975]) or the per-protocol analysis (OR=0.615 [95%CI; 0.183 -2.060]). All the sensitivity analyses showed consistent results. The sample size and adherence to the protocol in the intervention group were low.
conclusionPI group showed a non-statistically significant tendency towards presenting fewer relapses. This could be related to the improvement in adherence among patients that received the intervention.
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.