Abstract Background In previous studies, we investigated the effects of a care manager intervention for patients with depression treated in primary health care. At 6 months, care management improved depressive symptoms, remission, return to work, and adherence to anti-depressive medication more than care as usual. The aim of this study was to compare the long-term effectiveness of care management and usual care for primary care patients with depression on depressive symptoms, remission, quality of life, self-efficacy, confidence in care, and quality of care 12 and 24 months after the start of the intervention. Methods Cluster randomized controlled trial that included 23 primary care centers (11 intervention, 12 control) in the regions of Västra Götaland and Dalarna, Sweden. Patients ≥18 years with newly diagnosed mild to moderate depression (n = 376: 192 intervention, 184 control) were included. Patients at intervention centers co-developed a structured depression care plan with a care manager. Via 6 to 8 telephone contacts over 12 weeks, the care manager followed up symptoms and treatment, encouraged behavioral activation, provided education, and communicated with the patient’s general practitioner as needed. Patients at control centers received usual care. Adjusted mixed model repeated measure analysis was conducted on data gathered at 12 and 24 months on depressive symptoms and remission (MADRS-S); quality of life (EQ5D); and self-efficacy, confidence in care, and quality of care (study-specific questionnaire). Results The intervention group had less severe depressive symptoms than the control group at 12 (P = 0.02) but not 24 months (P = 0.83). They reported higher quality of life at 12 (P = 0.01) but not 24 months (P = 0.88). Differences in remission and self-efficacy were not significant, but patients in the intervention group were more confident that they could get information (53% vs 38%; P = 0.02) and professional emotional support (51% vs 40%; P = 0.05) from the primary care center. Conclusions Patients with depression who had a care manager maintained their 6-month improvements in symptoms at the 12- and 24-month follow-ups. Without a care manager, recovery could take up to 24 months. Patients with care managers also had significantly more confidence in primary care and belief in future support than controls. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02378272. Submitted 2/2/2015. Posted 4/3/2015.

OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to observe course, risk factors, and prognostic factors in a primary care cohort aged > 60 with mild to moderate depression during two-year follow-up. DESIGN:Observational study. SETTING:Primary care. SUBJECTS AND METHOD:During an 11-month period all (n = 302) consecutive patients aged 60 and above attending a primary care centre in Gothenburg, Sweden were screened by a nurse for depressive symptoms with the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders, Patient Questionnaire (PRIME-MD PQ) and the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, self-rated version (MADRS-S) and by a GP with a patient-centred consultation model. In the second step, the GPs diagnosed depression in screen-positives by use of the PRIME-MD Clinical Evaluation Guide (PRIME-MD CEG). All patients with mild to moderate depression were followed up for two years to assess course with several MADRS-S score assessments. Main outcome measures. Risk factors, prognostic factors, and symptoms at baseline and after two years were tested with logistic regression, using the DSM-IV and MADRS-S (cut-off > 13) respectively. Course patterns were observed and described. RESULTS:A total of 54 patients were diagnosed with depression. Follow-up revealed declining median MADRS-S scores and three course patterns: remitting, stable, and fluctuating. History of depression, significant life events, lacking leisure activities, and use of sedatives were risk factors for depression, all previously known. An important finding was that lacking leisure activities also increased the risk of depressive symptoms after two years (odds ratio 12, confidence interval 1.1-136). CONCLUSION:It is desirable to identify elderly individuals with less severe depression. Three course patterns were observed; this finding requires further study of the clinical characteristics related to the different patterns. Awareness of risk factors may facilitate identification of those at highest risk of poor prognosis.

Objective. Using validated screening instruments to detect depressive symptoms in the elderly has been recommended. The aim of this study was to compare a patient-centred consultation model with the PRIME-MD screening questionnaire, using the MADRS-S as reference for detecting depressive symptoms in an elderly primary care population. Design. Comparative study. Setting. Primary care, Sweden. Subjects. During an 11-month period 302 consecutive patients aged 60 and over attending a primary care centre were screened with the PRIME-MD and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale-Self-rated version (MADRS-S) instrument. The results were unknown to the GPs who used a structured, patient-centred consultation model comprising seven open-ended “key questions”. Main outcome measures. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPV), and negative predictive values (NPV) were calculated for the PRIME-MD screening questionnaire and the patient-centred consultation model using MADRS-S as reference for possible depression at two cut-off levels with 15% prevalence. Results. Sensitivity was lower for the consultation model than the PRIME-MD screening questionnaire: 78% and 98%, respectively. The GPs failed to identify every fifth patient using the lower cut-off (MADRS-S≥13) but the number of required diagnostic interviews decreased by almost 50%: 85 versus 162, respectively. PPV was 43% and 28%, respectively. Both instruments showed high sensitivity (93%) using the higher cut-off (MADRS-S≥20) and had high NPV: 95% and 99%, respectively. Conclusions. The findings suggest that the consultation screening procedure might be as useful in everyday practice as the PRIME-MD screening questionnaire. Both screening procedures may also be useful for ruling out depressive symptoms.

BACKGROUND:Depressive symptoms are common in older adults. A majority will be seen in primary care. The aim was to study the prevalence of and to explore factors associated with depressive symptoms in elderly primary care patients.METHOD:In consecutive patients aged 60 years and older attending a Swedish primary care center between February and December of 2003, depressive symptoms were identified as ≥ 13 points on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale-Self-Rated version (MADRS-S). Somatic symptoms measured according to PRIME-MD, age, socioeconomic status, gender, somatic diagnoses, and medication were analyzed in relation to presence of depressive symptoms.RESULTS:Forty-six of 302 patients (15%) rated themselves in the depressed range. There were no differences between depressed and nondepressed patients concerning socioeconomic status, other illnesses, or medication except for use of sedatives/hypnotics being more common (OR = 2.7, 95% CI = 1.3 to 5.6) in depressed patients. Patients in the group scoring ≥ 13 on the MADRS-S were more likely to have become widowed during the last year (OR = 6.0, 95% CI = 1.7 to 20.8) or to have indicated significant life events (OR = 4.3, 95% CI = 2.0 to 9.0), but were less likely to report having leisure time activities (OR = 0.2, 95% CI = 0.08 to 0.41) or perception of good health (OR = 0.1, 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.3). Patients being treated for depression did not have increased depression scores (OR = 1.4, 95% CI = 0.66 to 3.1).CONCLUSION:In a group of unselected primary care elderly patients, the prevalence of depressive symptoms was high. Use of sedatives/hypnotics was remarkably common in patients with depressive symptoms. Patients with ongoing treatment of depression did not have increased depression scores, indicating the good prognosis for treated depression in the elderly.