全科抑郁筛查后患者定向反馈的临床效果(GET.FEEDBACK.GP):在德国开展的一项由研究者发起的前瞻性、多中心、三臂、观察者盲法随机对照试验。

IF 30.8 1区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY Lancet Psychiatry Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-29 DOI:10.1016/S2215-0366(24)00035-X
Bernd Löwe, Martin Scherer, Lea-Elena Braunschneider, Gabriella Marx, Marion Eisele, Tina Mallon, Antonius Schneider, Klaus Linde, Christine Allwang, Stefanie Joos, Stephan Zipfel, Sven Schulz, Liliana Rost, Katja Brenk-Franz, Joachim Szecsenyi, Christoph Nikendei, Martin Härter, Jürgen Gallinat, Hans-Helmut König, Alexander Fierenz, Eik Vettorazzi, Antonia Zapf, Marco Lehmann, Sebastian Kohlmann
{"title":"全科抑郁筛查后患者定向反馈的临床效果(GET.FEEDBACK.GP):在德国开展的一项由研究者发起的前瞻性、多中心、三臂、观察者盲法随机对照试验。","authors":"Bernd Löwe, Martin Scherer, Lea-Elena Braunschneider, Gabriella Marx, Marion Eisele, Tina Mallon, Antonius Schneider, Klaus Linde, Christine Allwang, Stefanie Joos, Stephan Zipfel, Sven Schulz, Liliana Rost, Katja Brenk-Franz, Joachim Szecsenyi, Christoph Nikendei, Martin Härter, Jürgen Gallinat, Hans-Helmut König, Alexander Fierenz, Eik Vettorazzi, Antonia Zapf, Marco Lehmann, Sebastian Kohlmann","doi":"10.1016/S2215-0366(24)00035-X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Screening for depression in primary care alone is not sufficient to improve clinical outcomes. However, targeted feedback of the screening results to patients might result in beneficial effects. The GET.FEEDBACK.GP trial investigated whether targeted feedback of the depression screening result to patients, in addition to feedback to general practitioners (GPs), leads to greater reductions in depression severity than GP feedback alone or no feedback.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The GET.FEEDBACK.GP trial was an investigator-initiated, multicentre, three-arm, observer-blinded, randomised controlled trial. Depression screening was conducted electronically using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) in 64 GP practices across five regions in Germany while patients were waiting to see their GP. Currently undiagnosed patients (aged ≥18 years) who screened positive for depression (PHQ-9 score ≥10), were proficient in the German language, and had a personal consultation with a GP were randomly assigned (1:1:1) into a group that received no feedback on their depression screening result, a group in which only the GP received feedback, or a group in which both GP and patient received feedback. Randomisation was stratified by treating GP and PHQ-9 depression severity. Trial staff were masked to patient enrolment and study group allocation and GPs were masked to the feedback recieved by the patient. Written feedback, including the screening result and information on depression, was provided to the relevant groups before the consultation. The primary outcome was PHQ-9-measured depression severity at 6 months after randomisation. An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted for patients who had at least one follow-up visit. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03988985) and is complete.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Between July 17, 2019, and Jan 31, 2022, 25 279 patients were approached for eligibility screening, 17 150 were excluded, and 8129 patients completed screening, of whom 1030 (12·7%) screened positive for depression. 344 patients were randomly assigned to receive no feedback, 344 were assigned to receive GP-targeted feedback, and 339 were assigned to receive GP-targeted plus patient-targeted feedback. 252 (73%) patients in the no feedback group, 252 (73%) in the GP-targeted feedback group, and 256 (76%) in the GP-targeted and patient-targeted feedback group were included in the analysis of the primary outcome at 6 months, which reflected a follow-up rate of 74%. Gender was reported as female by 637 (62·1%) of 1025 participants, male by 384 (37·5%), and diverse by four (0·4%). 169 (16%) of 1026 patients with available migration data had a migration background. Mean age was 39·5 years (SD 15·2). PHQ-9 scores improved for each group between baseline and 6 months by -4·15 (95% CI -4·99 to -3·30) in the no feedback group, -4·19 (-5·04 to -3·33) in the GP feedback group, and -4·91 (-5·76 to -4·07) in the GP plus patient feedback group, with no significant difference between the three groups (global p=0·13). The difference in PHQ-9 scores when comparing the GP plus patient feedback group with the no feedback group was -0·77 (-1·60 to 0·07, d=-0·16) and when comparing with the GP-only feedback group was -0·73 (-1·56 to 0·11, d=-0·15). No increase in suicidality was observed as an adverse event in either group.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Providing targeted feedback to patients and GPs after depression screening does not significantly reduce depression severity compared with GP feedback alone or no feedback. Further research is required to investigate the potential specific effectiveness of depression screening with systematic feedback for selected subgroups.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>German Innovation Fund.</p><p><strong>Translation: </strong>For the German translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.</p>","PeriodicalId":48784,"journal":{"name":"Lancet Psychiatry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":30.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical effectiveness of patient-targeted feedback following depression screening in general practice (GET.FEEDBACK.GP): an investigator-initiated, prospective, multicentre, three-arm, observer-blinded, randomised controlled trial in Germany.\",\"authors\":\"Bernd Löwe, Martin Scherer, Lea-Elena Braunschneider, Gabriella Marx, Marion Eisele, Tina Mallon, Antonius Schneider, Klaus Linde, Christine Allwang, Stefanie Joos, Stephan Zipfel, Sven Schulz, Liliana Rost, Katja Brenk-Franz, Joachim Szecsenyi, Christoph Nikendei, Martin Härter, Jürgen Gallinat, Hans-Helmut König, Alexander Fierenz, Eik Vettorazzi, Antonia Zapf, Marco Lehmann, Sebastian Kohlmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/S2215-0366(24)00035-X\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Screening for depression in primary care alone is not sufficient to improve clinical outcomes. However, targeted feedback of the screening results to patients might result in beneficial effects. The GET.FEEDBACK.GP trial investigated whether targeted feedback of the depression screening result to patients, in addition to feedback to general practitioners (GPs), leads to greater reductions in depression severity than GP feedback alone or no feedback.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The GET.FEEDBACK.GP trial was an investigator-initiated, multicentre, three-arm, observer-blinded, randomised controlled trial. Depression screening was conducted electronically using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) in 64 GP practices across five regions in Germany while patients were waiting to see their GP. Currently undiagnosed patients (aged ≥18 years) who screened positive for depression (PHQ-9 score ≥10), were proficient in the German language, and had a personal consultation with a GP were randomly assigned (1:1:1) into a group that received no feedback on their depression screening result, a group in which only the GP received feedback, or a group in which both GP and patient received feedback. Randomisation was stratified by treating GP and PHQ-9 depression severity. Trial staff were masked to patient enrolment and study group allocation and GPs were masked to the feedback recieved by the patient. Written feedback, including the screening result and information on depression, was provided to the relevant groups before the consultation. The primary outcome was PHQ-9-measured depression severity at 6 months after randomisation. An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted for patients who had at least one follow-up visit. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03988985) and is complete.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Between July 17, 2019, and Jan 31, 2022, 25 279 patients were approached for eligibility screening, 17 150 were excluded, and 8129 patients completed screening, of whom 1030 (12·7%) screened positive for depression. 344 patients were randomly assigned to receive no feedback, 344 were assigned to receive GP-targeted feedback, and 339 were assigned to receive GP-targeted plus patient-targeted feedback. 252 (73%) patients in the no feedback group, 252 (73%) in the GP-targeted feedback group, and 256 (76%) in the GP-targeted and patient-targeted feedback group were included in the analysis of the primary outcome at 6 months, which reflected a follow-up rate of 74%. Gender was reported as female by 637 (62·1%) of 1025 participants, male by 384 (37·5%), and diverse by four (0·4%). 169 (16%) of 1026 patients with available migration data had a migration background. Mean age was 39·5 years (SD 15·2). PHQ-9 scores improved for each group between baseline and 6 months by -4·15 (95% CI -4·99 to -3·30) in the no feedback group, -4·19 (-5·04 to -3·33) in the GP feedback group, and -4·91 (-5·76 to -4·07) in the GP plus patient feedback group, with no significant difference between the three groups (global p=0·13). The difference in PHQ-9 scores when comparing the GP plus patient feedback group with the no feedback group was -0·77 (-1·60 to 0·07, d=-0·16) and when comparing with the GP-only feedback group was -0·73 (-1·56 to 0·11, d=-0·15). No increase in suicidality was observed as an adverse event in either group.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Providing targeted feedback to patients and GPs after depression screening does not significantly reduce depression severity compared with GP feedback alone or no feedback. Further research is required to investigate the potential specific effectiveness of depression screening with systematic feedback for selected subgroups.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>German Innovation Fund.</p><p><strong>Translation: </strong>For the German translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48784,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Lancet Psychiatry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":30.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Lancet Psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(24)00035-X\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lancet Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(24)00035-X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:仅在初级保健中筛查抑郁症不足以改善临床效果。然而,将筛查结果有针对性地反馈给患者可能会产生有益的效果。GET.FEEDBACK.GP试验调查了在向全科医生(GPs)反馈抑郁症筛查结果的同时,向患者有针对性地反馈抑郁症筛查结果是否会比仅向全科医生反馈抑郁症筛查结果或不反馈抑郁症筛查结果更能降低抑郁症的严重程度:GET.FEEDBACK.GP 试验是一项由研究者发起的多中心、三臂、观察者盲法随机对照试验。在德国五个地区的 64 家全科医生诊所中,患者在等待看全科医生时,使用患者健康问卷-9(PHQ-9)进行电子抑郁筛查。将目前未确诊的抑郁症患者(年龄≥18 岁)中筛查结果呈阳性(PHQ-9 评分≥10 分)、精通德语并与全科医生进行过个人咨询的患者随机分配(1:1:1)到未收到抑郁症筛查结果反馈的一组、仅全科医生收到反馈的一组或全科医生和患者均收到反馈的一组。随机分组按主治全科医生和 PHQ-9 抑郁症严重程度进行。试验人员对患者的注册和研究组的分配进行匿名,全科医生对患者收到的反馈进行匿名。书面反馈包括筛查结果和抑郁信息,在就诊前提供给相关小组。主要结果是随机分组后 6 个月时 PHQ-9 测定的抑郁严重程度。对至少进行过一次随访的患者进行了意向治疗分析。该研究已在ClinicalTrials.gov(NCT03988985)上注册,研究结果完整:2019年7月17日至2022年1月31日期间,25 279名患者接受了资格筛查,17 150人被排除在外,8 129名患者完成了筛查,其中1030人(12-7%)筛查出抑郁症阳性。344名患者被随机分配到不接受反馈,344名患者被分配到接受针对全科医生的反馈,339名患者被分配到接受针对全科医生和患者的反馈。无反馈组中有 252 名患者(73%)、全科医生定向反馈组中有 252 名患者(73%)、全科医生定向和患者定向反馈组中有 256 名患者(76%)被纳入 6 个月的主要结果分析,随访率为 74%。1025 名参与者中有 637 人(62-1%)报告性别为女性,384 人(37-5%)报告性别为男性,4 人(0-4%)报告性别为多样性。在 1026 名有移民数据的患者中,169 人(16%)有移民背景。平均年龄为 39-5 岁(SD 15-2)。从基线到6个月期间,各组的PHQ-9评分均有所提高,无反馈组提高了-4-15(95% CI -4-99至-3-30),全科医生反馈组提高了-4-19(-5-04至-3-33),全科医生加患者反馈组提高了-4-91(-5-76至-4-07),三组之间无显著差异(总体P=0-13)。全科医生加患者反馈组与无反馈组相比,PHQ-9得分差异为-0-77(-1-60至0-07,d=-0-16),与全科医生反馈组相比,PHQ-9得分差异为-0-73(-1-56至0-11,d=-0-15)。两组中均未观察到自杀这一不良事件的增加:解读:与仅有全科医生反馈或无反馈相比,在抑郁症筛查后向患者和全科医生提供有针对性的反馈并不能显著降低抑郁症的严重程度。需要进一步研究抑郁症筛查与系统反馈对特定亚组的潜在具体效果:德国创新基金:摘要德文译文见补充材料部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Clinical effectiveness of patient-targeted feedback following depression screening in general practice (GET.FEEDBACK.GP): an investigator-initiated, prospective, multicentre, three-arm, observer-blinded, randomised controlled trial in Germany.

Background: Screening for depression in primary care alone is not sufficient to improve clinical outcomes. However, targeted feedback of the screening results to patients might result in beneficial effects. The GET.FEEDBACK.GP trial investigated whether targeted feedback of the depression screening result to patients, in addition to feedback to general practitioners (GPs), leads to greater reductions in depression severity than GP feedback alone or no feedback.

Methods: The GET.FEEDBACK.GP trial was an investigator-initiated, multicentre, three-arm, observer-blinded, randomised controlled trial. Depression screening was conducted electronically using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) in 64 GP practices across five regions in Germany while patients were waiting to see their GP. Currently undiagnosed patients (aged ≥18 years) who screened positive for depression (PHQ-9 score ≥10), were proficient in the German language, and had a personal consultation with a GP were randomly assigned (1:1:1) into a group that received no feedback on their depression screening result, a group in which only the GP received feedback, or a group in which both GP and patient received feedback. Randomisation was stratified by treating GP and PHQ-9 depression severity. Trial staff were masked to patient enrolment and study group allocation and GPs were masked to the feedback recieved by the patient. Written feedback, including the screening result and information on depression, was provided to the relevant groups before the consultation. The primary outcome was PHQ-9-measured depression severity at 6 months after randomisation. An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted for patients who had at least one follow-up visit. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03988985) and is complete.

Findings: Between July 17, 2019, and Jan 31, 2022, 25 279 patients were approached for eligibility screening, 17 150 were excluded, and 8129 patients completed screening, of whom 1030 (12·7%) screened positive for depression. 344 patients were randomly assigned to receive no feedback, 344 were assigned to receive GP-targeted feedback, and 339 were assigned to receive GP-targeted plus patient-targeted feedback. 252 (73%) patients in the no feedback group, 252 (73%) in the GP-targeted feedback group, and 256 (76%) in the GP-targeted and patient-targeted feedback group were included in the analysis of the primary outcome at 6 months, which reflected a follow-up rate of 74%. Gender was reported as female by 637 (62·1%) of 1025 participants, male by 384 (37·5%), and diverse by four (0·4%). 169 (16%) of 1026 patients with available migration data had a migration background. Mean age was 39·5 years (SD 15·2). PHQ-9 scores improved for each group between baseline and 6 months by -4·15 (95% CI -4·99 to -3·30) in the no feedback group, -4·19 (-5·04 to -3·33) in the GP feedback group, and -4·91 (-5·76 to -4·07) in the GP plus patient feedback group, with no significant difference between the three groups (global p=0·13). The difference in PHQ-9 scores when comparing the GP plus patient feedback group with the no feedback group was -0·77 (-1·60 to 0·07, d=-0·16) and when comparing with the GP-only feedback group was -0·73 (-1·56 to 0·11, d=-0·15). No increase in suicidality was observed as an adverse event in either group.

Interpretation: Providing targeted feedback to patients and GPs after depression screening does not significantly reduce depression severity compared with GP feedback alone or no feedback. Further research is required to investigate the potential specific effectiveness of depression screening with systematic feedback for selected subgroups.

Funding: German Innovation Fund.

Translation: For the German translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Lancet Psychiatry
Lancet Psychiatry PSYCHIATRY-
CiteScore
58.30
自引率
0.90%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Lancet Psychiatry is a globally renowned and trusted resource for groundbreaking research in the field of psychiatry. We specialize in publishing original studies that contribute to transforming and shedding light on important aspects of psychiatric practice. Our comprehensive coverage extends to diverse topics including psychopharmacology, psychotherapy, and psychosocial approaches that address psychiatric disorders throughout the lifespan. We aim to channel innovative treatments and examine the biological research that forms the foundation of such advancements. Our journal also explores novel service delivery methods and promotes fresh perspectives on mental illness, emphasizing the significant contributions of social psychiatry.
期刊最新文献
Competency-based training and supervision: development of the WHO-UNICEF Ensuring Quality in Psychosocial and Mental Health Care (EQUIP) initiative. Antipsychotic exposure and infection risk in people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic: a Danish nationwide registry study. Antipsychotics and severity of infections: correlation or causation? COVID-19 and mental health consequences: moving forward. Psychotropic drug prescribing before and during the COVID-19 pandemic among people with depressive and anxiety disorders: a multinational network study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1