4.5 Article

Characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes of persistent depression despite treatment in primary care

期刊

GENERAL HOSPITAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 26, 期 2, 页码 106-114

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2003.08.009

关键词

persistent depression; primary care; treatment-resistant depression

资金

  1. AHRQ HHS [R01-HS08349] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [P50-MH54623] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We examine the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of depressed primary care patients who receive at least minimal standards of evidence-based treatment, comparing those who remain depressed with those who recover; and their subsequent treatment patterns and other outcomes. We used observational data from a subset of 542 treated patients participating in a group-level randomized controlled trial of quality improvement interventions for depression conducted in six managed care organizations. Nonresponse to treatment was defined as having at least minimally appropriate treatment for at least two of three 6-month periods but continuing to have probable depression. Our definitions of depression and appropriate treatment are broader than those used in clinical trials, but relevant to primary care settings. Many of the factors predictive of treatment resistance in clinical trials predict nonresponse to guideline concordant care among diverse primary care, depressed patients. The main unique predictors of nonresponse to treatment include a clinical factor (suicide ideation) requiring clinician assessment and intervention, a social/economic factor (unemployment) usually not addressed by medical interventions, and medication nonadherence. Nonresponders used more adjunctive therapies and combination medications, suggesting clinicians and patients were searching for solutions. High rates of service use and poor outcomes emphasize the urgency of new research to find solutions for these patients. (C) 2004 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.5
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