Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33495203›Full record

Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2021

Use of a personalised depression intervention in primary care to prevent anxiety: a secondary study of a cluster randomised trial.

Patricia Moreno-Peral, Sonia Conejo-Cerón, Juan de Dios Luna, Michael King, Irwin Nazareth, Carlos Martín-Pérez, Carmen Fernández-Alonso, María Isabel Ballesta-Rodríguez, Anna Fernández, José María Aiarzaguena and 2 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Role of primary care in depression relapse: a qualitative study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

12 authors.

Patricia Moreno-PeralPrimary Care District of Málaga-Guadalhorce, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga-IBIMA, Primary Care Prevention and Health Promotion Network (redIAPP), Spain.
Sonia Conejo-CerónPrimary Care District of Málaga-Guadalhorce, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga-IBIMA, Primary Care Prevention and Health Promotion Network (redIAPP), Spain.
Juan de Dios LunaDepartment of Biostatistics, Medical School, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Michael KingMental Health Sciences, Faculty of Brain Sciences.
Irwin NazarethDepartment of Primary Care and Population Health, UCL, London, UK.
Carlos Martín-PérezMarquesado Health Centre, Northeast Area of Granada, Spain.
Carmen Fernández-AlonsoService Assistance Programs, Regional Health Management Valladolid, Spain.
María Isabel Ballesta-RodríguezFederico del Castillo Health Centre, Jaén, Spain.
Anna FernándezParc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu, Fundació Sant Joan de Déu, Barcelona, Spain; CIBERESP, Centro de Investigacion Biomedica en Red de Epidemiologia y Salud Publica, Spain.
José María AiarzaguenaSan Ignacio Health Centre, Primary Care Research Unit, Osakidetza Bilbao, Spain.
Carmen Montón-FrancoCasablanca Health Centre, Aragonese Institute of Health Sciences, IIS Aragón, Department of Medicine and Psychiatry, University of Zaragoza, Spain.
Juan Ángel BellónEl Palo Health Centre, Andalusian Health Service (SAS); Primary Care District of Málaga-Guadalhorce; Biomedical Research Institute of Málaga (IBIMA); Primary Care Prevention and Health Promotion Network (redIAPP); Department of Public Health and Psychiatry, University of Málaga, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the predictD-intervention, GPs used a personalised biopsychosocial programme to prevent depression. This reduced the incidence of major depression by 21.0%, although the results were not statistically significant.

aimTo determine whether the predictD-intervention is effective at preventing anxiety in primary care patients without depression or anxiety. DESIGN AND

settingSecondary study of a cluster randomised trial with practices randomly assigned to either the predictD-intervention or usual care. This study was conducted in seven Spanish cities from October 2010 to July 2012.

methodIn each city, 10 practices and two GPs per practice, as well as four to six patients every recruiting day, were randomly selected until there were 26-27 eligible patients for each GP. The endpoint was cumulative incidence of anxiety as measured by the PRIME-MD screening tool over 18 months.

resultsA total of 3326 patients without depression and 140 GPs from 70 practices consented and were eligible to participate; 328 of these patients were removed because they had an anxiety syndrome at baseline. Of the 2998 valid patients, 2597 (86.6%) were evaluated at the end of the study. At 18 months, 10.4% (95% CI = 8.7% to 12.1%) of the patients in the predictD-intervention group developed anxiety compared with 13.1% (95% CI = 11.4% to 14.8%) in the usual-care group (absolute difference = -2.7% [95% CI = -5.1% to -0.3%];

conclusionA personalised intervention delivered by GPs for the prevention of depression provided a modest but statistically significant reduction in the incidence of anxiety.

Indexed as

DepressionMajor Depressive DisorderAnxietyAnxiety DisordersHumansPrimary Health Careanxietycontrolled clinical trialdepressionprimary careprimary prevention

Identifiers

PMID33495203
PMCPMC7846354

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.