Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32471492›Full record

ArticleTrials2020

Patient-reported outcome measures for monitoring primary care patients with depression (PROMDEP): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Tony Kendrick, Michael Moore, Geraldine Leydon, Beth Stuart, Adam W A Geraghty, Guiqing Yao, Glyn Lewis, Gareth Griffiths, Carl May, Rachel Dewar-Haggart and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Depression follow-up monitoring with the PHQ-9: an open cluster-randomised controlled trial.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Tony KendrickPrimary Care, Population Sciences, and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Health Centre, Southampton, SO16 5ST, UK. A.R.Kendrick@soton.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1618-9381
Michael MoorePrimary Care, Population Sciences, and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Health Centre, Southampton, SO16 5ST, UK.
Geraldine LeydonPrimary Care, Population Sciences, and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Health Centre, Southampton, SO16 5ST, UK.
Beth StuartPrimary Care, Population Sciences, and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Health Centre, Southampton, SO16 5ST, UK.
Adam W A GeraghtyPrimary Care, Population Sciences, and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Health Centre, Southampton, SO16 5ST, UK.
Guiqing YaoDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, George Davies Centre, University Road Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK.
Glyn LewisDivision of Psychiatry, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, 6th Floor, Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Rd, London, W1T 7NF, UK.
Gareth GriffithsSouthampton Clinical Trials Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Tremona Road, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK.
Carl MayDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK.
Rachel Dewar-HaggartPrimary Care, Population Sciences, and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Health Centre, Southampton, SO16 5ST, UK.
Samantha WilliamsPrimary Care, Population Sciences, and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Health Centre, Southampton, SO16 5ST, UK.
Shihua ZhuPrimary Care, Population Sciences, and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Health Centre, Southampton, SO16 5ST, UK.
Christopher DowrickInstitute of Psychology Health and Society, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GL, UK.
University of Southampton · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBSouthampton General Hospital · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Leicester · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

National Institute for Health Research HTA 17/42/02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBenefits to patients from reduced depression have been shown from monitoring progress with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in psychological therapy and mental health settings. This approach has not yet been researched in the United Kingdom for primary care, which is where most people with depression are treated in the United Kingdom.

methodsThis is a parallel-group cluster randomised trial with 1:1 allocation to intervention and control. Patients who are age 18+ years, with a new episode of depressive disorder/symptoms, meet the inclusion criteria. Patients with current depression treatment, comorbid dementia/psychosis/substance misuse/suicidal ideas are excluded. The intervention includes the Administration of Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) as a PROM within 2 weeks of diagnosis and at follow-up 4 weeks later. General practitioners are trained in interpreting scores and asked to take them into account in their treatment decisions. Patients are given written feedback on scores and suggested treatments. The primary outcome measure is Depression on the Beck Depression Inventory BDI-II at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes include BDI-II at 26 weeks, changes in drug treatments and referrals, social functioning (Work & Social Adjustment Scale) and quality of life (EQ-5D) at 12 and 26 weeks, service use over 26 weeks (modified Client Services Receipt Inventory) to calculate NHS costs, and patient satisfaction at 26 weeks (Medical Informant Satisfaction Scale). The sample includes 676 total participants from 113 practices across three centres. Randomisation is achieved by computerised sequence generation. Blinding is impossible given the nature of the intervention (self-report outcome measures prevent rating bias). Differences at 12 and 26 weeks between intervention and controls in depression, social functioning and quality of life are analysed using linear mixed models, adjusted for socio-demographics, baseline depression, anxiety, and clustering, while including practice as a random effect. Patient satisfaction, quality of life (QALYs) and costs over 26 weeks will be compared between arms. Qualitative process analysis includes interviews with 15-20 GP/NPs and 15-20 patients per arm to reflect trial results and implementation issues, using Normalization Process Theory as a theoretical framework. DISCUSSION: If PROMs are helpful in improving patient outcomes for depression even to a small extent, then they are likely to be good value for money, given their low cost. The benefits could be considerable, given that depression is common, disabling, and costly.

trial registrationISRCTN no: 17299295. Registered 1st October 2018.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisDepressive DisorderHumansLinear ModelsMulticenter Studies as TopicPatient Health QuestionnairePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPatient SatisfactionPrimary Health CarePsychiatric Status Rating ScalesQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeUnited KingdomDepression, Primary care, Monitoring, Patient-reported outcome measures, PHQ-9

Identifiers

PMID32471492
PMCPMC7257549
OpenAlexW3032593165

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.