4.7 Article

Clinical factors associated with relapse in primary care patients with chronic or recurrent depression

期刊

JOURNAL OF AFFECTIVE DISORDERS
卷 101, 期 1-3, 页码 57-63

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2006.10.023

关键词

depression; relapse; recurrent; chronic; predictors; primary care

资金

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [MH 4-1739] Funding Source: Medline
  2. PHS HHS [H 016473] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Because in most patients depression is a relapsing/remitting disorder, finding clinical factors associated with risk of relapse is important. The majority of patients with depression are treated in primary care settings, but few previous studies have examined predictors of relapse in primary care patients with recurrent or chronic depression. Methods: Data from a cohort of 386 primary care patients in a clinical trial were analyzed for clinical and demographic predictors of relapse over a one-year post-study observational period. Patients were selected for a high risk of relapse, based on a history of either 3 previous depressive episodes or dysthymia, and enrolled in a randomized trial of relapse prevention. Results: Factors found to be associated with significantly higher risk of relapse included poorer medication adherence in the 30 days prior to the trial, lower self-efficacy to manage depression, and higher scores on the Child Trauma Questionnaire. Limitations: Use of a sample of limited diversity taken from a clinical trial, and use of retrospective information from patients with potential for recall bias. Conclusions: The findings of this report suggest specific risk factors to be targeted in depression relapse prevention interventions. It is encouraging that two of the factors associated with increased risk of relapse, self-efficacy and medication adherence have been seen to improve with the intervention utilized in the primary care trial from which the studied cohort was drawn. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据