Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2021
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2021
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Evidence

Effectiveness of an educational strategy to improve family physicians' detection and management of depression

a randomized controlled trial

Graham Worrall, John Angel, Paul Chaulk, Cordell Clarke and Megan Robbins
CMAJ July 13, 1999 161 (1) 37-40;
Graham Worrall
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John Angel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul Chaulk
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cordell Clarke
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Megan Robbins
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background: Depression, a common disorder often treated by family physicians, may be both underdiagnosed and undertreated. The objective of this study was to determine whether the diagnosis and treatment of depression by family physicians could be improved through an educational strategy.

Methods: In this study, conducted between July and December 1997, 42 family physicians in Newfoundland were randomly assigned to an intervention group (3-hour case-based educational session on clinical practice guidelines [CPGs] for depression and access to a psychiatrist for consultation) or to a control group (receipt of CPGs without educational session or access to the psychiatrist). Physicians were asked to keep a log of patients with newly diagnosed depression and to record information on severity of depression, medications and referrals to mental health professionals. Patients were asked to complete the Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) scale before treatment and after 6 months of follow-up. The primary outcome measure was the "gain" score (difference between first and last CES-D scores).

Results: During the study period physicians in the intervention group diagnosed 91 new cases of depression (mean 4.1 per physician) and those in the control group diagnosed 56 (mean 2.8 per physician); the difference was not significant. Most patients (91.2% in the intervention group and 89.3% in the control group received a prescription for an antidepressant on their first visit. Similar proportions (46.2% in the intervention group and 37.5% in the control group) took their medication for the full 6 months; however, significantly more patients in the intervention group were taking an antidepressant at the 6-month follow-up (56% v. 39.3%, p = 0.02). The mean number of visits per patient was similar in the 2 groups (7.7 in the intervention group and 7.6 in the control group). Physicians in the intervention group consulted the psychiatrist 9 times. The overall rate of referrals to psychiatrists and other mental health professionals was 10.9%; however, referrals were significantly higher in the intervention group (15.4% v. 3.5%, p = 0.05). After 6 months of follow-up, a significant difference in gain scores was detected between the intervention and control groups for both the patient's self-rated CES-D scores (mean gain score 19.3 v. 15.5 respectively, p = 0.04) and the physicians' ratings of depression severity before treatment and at 6 months (mean gain 1.1 v. 0.7 respectively, p = 0.02).

Interpretation: The educational strategy had a modest beneficial effect on the outcomes of patients with depression, but there are still concerns regarding the low rates of drug treatment and referral to mental health professionals by family physicians.

Depression is a common disorder often treated by family physicians. [1–4] In Canada depression is related to about 60% of suicides [5] and causes an annual loss of 123 000 potential life-years, with an estimated cost of $1.6 billion per year. [6] The annual incidence of major depression is at least 2.5 cases per 1000 primary care patients. [7] According to the 1994-1995 Canadian National Population Health Survey, 6% of adults had a major depressive episode in a 1-year period, and only 43% of those affected contacted a health care professional. [8] Given the prevalence of depression and the fact that it often goes unrecognized [9] and untreated, [10] better detection and treatment strategies would be of enormous benefit. [11–13]

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are developed using explicit principles of evidence review. [14, 15] However, there is uncertainty concerning the ideal way to introduce guidelines into clinical practice [16] and, once introduced, how effective they actually are. [17] Guidelines are more likely to be effective if they are easily accessible and involve an educational component [18] and if more than one guideline implementation strategy is used. [19] The use of CPGs by physicians may improve patient care, [16] but whether these improvements lead to lasting positive results remains to be determined. [20]

The objective of our study was to assess whether a workshop on CPGs and the provision of follow-up consults with a psychiatrist improved the process of care and outcomes for patients with depression diagnosed by their family physician.

Methods

This study was approved by the Human Investigations Committee of Memorial University of Newfoundland. After a 3-month pilot project, 42 fee-for-service physicians, members of a family practice research network, were recruited. The physicians were assigned to the intervention or control group by the use of random number tables. The design of the randomized controlled trial is depicted in Figure 1. To avoid possible contamination, only one physician per practice was included in the study, and to avoid cointervention, only one physician in each town was recruited (except St. John's).

Figure1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint

Figure 1. Design of randomized controlled trial to improve family physicians' use of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the detection and management of depression. R = randomization.

Physicians in the intervention group attended a small educational workshop where they were introduced to the CPGs formulated by the Canadian Medical Association for the detection and treatment of depression. [21] Workshops were led by a psychiatrist with a special interest in treating depression in the community (J.A.) and an academic family physician (G.W.) and were attended by physicians in groups of 2-4. The 3-hour session included information on the epidemiology of depression, an explanation of the CPGs and a discussion of prepared cases. Physicians were also invited to discuss their own cases with reference to specific difficulties they had in diagnosing and treating depression. In addition to the workshop, a psychiatrist was readily available for advice on patient management at a specific time each week.

Family physicians in the control group were mailed a copy of the CPGs but were given no specific instructions on their use. They did not attend an educational workshop, and they were not paired with the consulting psychiatrist.

All physicians were asked to keep a log of new cases of depression diagnosed during the study period and were contacted regularly by a research assistant to encourage protocol compliance. The diagnosis was subjective; each patient was rated on a 4-point ordinal scale (4 = severe depression, 1 = absence of depressive symptoms). Physicians were asked to explain the study protocol to each patient, to obtain informed consent from each patient and to recruit them for the 6-month duration of the study.

All patients with depression were treated as usual. If they gave informed consent once the study was explained, they completed the Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) scale, [22] a 20-item self-report questionnaire. The threshold score for depression on the CES-D scale is 16. The physician also completed a symptom checklist for each patient. In addition to the 2 major and 7 minor diagnostic criteria listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV), [23] 4 other dummy variables were included in the checklist in random order.

For the 6 months following diagnosis, the physicians recorded the number of office visits during the acute phase (first 3 months) and the continuation phase (3-6 months) of the illness and all information regarding antidepressant medication. Physicians also noted any referrals made to a psychiatrist or other mental health professional.

At the end of the 6-month period, each patient completed the CES-D again and a "gain" score (the difference in score since the first visit) was calculated. This was the primary outcome measure for the study; a higher gain score indicated greater improvement in the patient's condition. Physicians also rated (on the ordinal scale) the patient's condition at this time and a physician gain score was calculated.

Descriptive statistics on age, sex and number of years in practice for each physician, as well as the type (group or solo) and location (urban or rural) of each practice, the age and sex of each patient and end points were compiled. Means were compared using t-tests and Fisher's exact tests, and proportions were compared using chi squared tests. Given the physician sample size, there was enough power to detect a mean difference of 3.6 points in the CES-D gain score, a mean difference of 0.6 in the ordinal gain score and a mean difference of 0.9 in the DSM-IV symptoms recorded by physicians (alpha = 0.05, beta = 0.2). Similarly, assuming a mean of 8 diagnoses (standard deviation [SD] 2.0) per physician, there was power to detect a difference of 1.6 diagnoses.

Results

There were no significant differences between physician in the intervention group (n = 22) and those in the control group (n = 20) in mean number of years in practice or practice location. The number of female patients did not differ between the intervention and the control groups (60 [65.9%] and 43 [76.8%] respectively). The mean age of patients in the intervention group was 43.2 and in the control group, 45.7 (p = 0.03).

Physicians in the intervention group diagnosed 91 new cases of depression (mean 4.1 [SD 3.2] per physician), and those in the control group diagnosed 56 (mean 2.8 [SD 3.6] per physician); the difference was not significant. Using DSM-IV criteria, physicians in the intervention group and the control group correctly diagnosed similar numbers of cases (93.4% and 94.6% respectively). There were no significant differences between physicians in the number of major and minor diagnostic criteria assigned per patient, nor were there differences in the mean number of office visits per patient (Table 1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint

Table 1. Process and outcome measures of a randomized controlled trial to improve family physicians' use of clinical practice guidelines for the detection and management of depression

Eighty-three (91.2%) of the patients in the intervention group and 50 (89.3%) in the control group were given a prescription for an antidepressant at the first office visit. The proportion of patients in each group who took medication for the full 6 months was similar (46.2% in the intervention group and 37.5% in the control group), but more patients in the intervention group were taking antidepressants at the 6-month follow-up visit (56.0% v. 39.3%, p = 0.02).

The study psychiatrist was consulted by physicians in the intervention group a total of 9 times during the study. Only 8 (5.4%) of the 147 patients were referred to a psychiatrist (6 in the intervention group and 2 in the control group; difference not significant). There were 8 referrals to other mental health professionals, all made by physicians in the intervention group. In total, 14 patients in the intervention group and 2 in the control group were referred elsewhere (p = 0.05).

Before treatment the mean CES-D score for patients did not differ significantly between groups (Table 1). The mean scores at 6 months were lower overall but again did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. However, the resulting mean gain scores for patients in the intervention group were significantly higher than those for patients in the control group (p = 0.04). A significant difference between the 2 groups was also detected in the mean gain scores for physicians' ratings of depression severity (p = 0.02).

Interpretation

The results of our study suggest that it is possible to change physicians' behaviour and improve patient care with a relatively simple educational intervention based on CPGs for managing depression. Significant differences between gain scores calculated from patients' self-ratings and the ratings of physicians indicated that the patients in the intervention group improved more than those in the control group. Gain scores have been used to measure improvement in the psychological condition of patients in other studies as well. [24, 25]

There were several nonsignificant but encouraging trends in this study. Similar to the results of others, [24, 26] physicians who received the educational intervention diagnosed depression more often than physicians in the control group. Also in accordance with the results of others, [25–27] a greater proportion of patients in the intervention group took their medication for the duration of the study. It was concerning, however, that 44% of the patients in the intervention group and 61% of those in the control group were not taking antidepressants at the end of the study. We are uncertain why this was the case, but perhaps the type of depression treated by family physicians is of shorter duration and lesser severity than that seen by psychiatrists. [28]

The psychiatrist available to physicians in the intervention group received 9 calls. Although it is rare for a psychiatrist to receive direct calls from family physicians, many of the physicians were pleased to meet the psychiatrist and said that the personal contact reinforced their confidence in dealing with difficult cases of depression.

Strengths of this study included the randomized design, the primary care setting and the attempt to measure not only the process but also the outcome of care. Our study had limitations as well. It is often difficult to assess one's own behaviour without bias; however, we designed the study with outcome variables that we felt would be recorded accurately and validly in the charts. It is also possible that the behaviour of the patients was influenced by the Hawthorne effect - the tendency for subjects to perform better when they know they are being observed. If this was the case, the differences between the groups would have been reduced. Finally, the duration of the study was short; we are following these patients for a longer period to determine whether the beneficial effects of treatment are maintained.

Although patients of physicians in the intervention group benefited, less than half of the patient population remained on antidepressant medication for the full 6 months of the study, and the rate of referral to a psychiatrist was only about 5%. These rates seem low and are areas of concern in the treatment of patients with depression.

This work was primarily supported by a grant from the Medical Research Council of Canada. We received support for the workshops from Solvay-Kingswood Ltd., and we received unrestricted educational grants from Eli Lilly Co. and Pfizer Canada Inc.

Competing interests: None declared.

This article has been peer reviewed.

Reprint requests to: Dr. Graham Worrall, Newhook Community Health Centre, Whitbourne NF AOB 3KO; fax 709 759-2387; gworrall@morgan.ucs.mun.ca

References

  1. 1.↵
    Prestige BR, Lake CR. Prevalence and recognition of depression among primary care outpatients. J Fam Pract1987;25:67-72.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. 2.
    Weissman MM, Myers JK. Affective disorders in a US urban community: the use of research diagnostic criteria in an epidemiological survey. Arch Gen Psychiatry1978;35:1304-11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.
    Zung W. The role of rating scales in the identification and management of the depressed patient in the primary care setting. J Clin Psychiatry1990;51(Suppl 6):72-6.
  4. 4.↵
    Katon W. The epidemiology of depression in medical care. Int J Psychiatry Med1987;17:93-112.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Mao Y, Hasselback P, Davies VW, Nichol R, Wigle DT. Suicide in Canada: an epidemiological assessment. Can J Public Health1990;81(4):324-8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Studemire A, Frank R, Hedemark N. The economic burden of depression. Gen Hosp Psychiatry1986;8:387-94.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    Murphy J, Olivier D, Monson R, Sobol A, Leighton A. Incidence of depression and anxiety: the Stirling County Study. Am J Public Health1988;78(5):534-40.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    Diverty B, Beaudet MP. Depression: An undertreated disorder? Health Rep1997;8(4):9-17.
  9. 9.↵
    Michell-Heggs N. Aspects of the natural history and clinical presentation of depression. Proc R Soc Med1971;64:1171-8.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    Zung WWK, King RE. Identification and treatment of masked depression in a general medical practice. J Clin Psychiatry1983;44:365-8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Priority-Setting Group Council on Health Care Technology, Institute of Medicine. Comparison on priority-setting criteria. In: Lara ME, Goodman C, editors. National priorities for the assessment of clinical conditions and medical technologies: report of a pilot study. Washington: National Academy Press; 1990. p. 77-81.
  12. 12.
    Committee on Educational Objectives. Emphasis scores and levels of family physician competence for specific diseases. In: Educational objectives for certification in family medicine. Toronto: College of Family Physicians of Canada; 1981. p. 62-85.
  13. 13.↵
    Kates N, Craven M, Bishop J, Clinton T, Kraftcheck D, LeClair K, et al. Shared mental health care in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Psychiatric Association; 1997.
  14. 14.↵
    Jackson MN, Nutting PA. Clinical guidelines development: opportunities for family physicians. J Fam Pract1991;33:129-32.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    Guidelines for doctors in the new world [editorial]. Lancet1992;339:1197-8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    Grimshaw J, Russell IT. Do clinical guidelines influence medical practice? Aberdeen (UK): Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen; 1992. Occasional paper 13.
  17. 17.↵
    Emslie C, Grimshaw J, Templeton A. Do clinical guidelines improve general practice management and referral of infertile couples? BMJ1993;306:1728-31.
  18. 18.↵
    Haynes R, Davis D, McKibbon A, Tugwell P. A critical appraisal of the efficacy of continuing medical education. JAMA1984;251:61-4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    Wensing M, Van der Weijden T, Grol R. Implementing guidelines and innovations in general practice: Which interventions are effective? Br J Gen Pract1998;48:991-7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    Worrall G, Chaulk P, Freake D. The effects of clinical practice guidelines on patient outcomes in primary care: a systematic review. CMAJ1997;156(12):1705-12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    Reesal R, Vincent P. Depression: diagnosis in primary care. CMA disease management/patient counselling series. Toronto: Grosvenor House Press; 1992.
  22. 22.↵
    Radloff LS. The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas1977;1(3):385-401.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  23. 23.↵
    American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic criteria from DSM-IV. Washington: The Association; 1994. p. 161-72.
  24. 24.↵
    Hannaford PC, Thompson C, Simpson M. Evaluation of an educational programme to improve the recognition of psychological illness by general practitioners. Br J Gen Pract1996;46:333-7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    Katon W, Von Korrf M, Lin E, Walker E, Simon GE, Bush T. Collaborative management to achieve treatment guidelines. JAMA1995;273:1026-31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    Callaghan CM, Hendrie HC, Dittus RS, Brater DC, Hui SL, Tierney WL. Improving treatment of depression in primary care: a randomized clinical trial. J Am Geriatr Soc1994;42:839-46.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    Kendrick T, Burns T, Freeling P. Randomized controlled trial of teaching general practitioners to carry out structured assessments of their long term mentally ill patients. BMJ1995;311:93-8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    Johnstone A, Goldberg D. Psychiatric screening in general practice. Lancet1976;1:605-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

CMAJ
Vol. 161, Issue 1
13 Jul 1999
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Effectiveness of an educational strategy to improve family physicians' detection and management of depression
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Effectiveness of an educational strategy to improve family physicians' detection and management of depression
Graham Worrall, John Angel, Paul Chaulk, Cordell Clarke, Megan Robbins
CMAJ Jul 1999, 161 (1) 37-40;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Effectiveness of an educational strategy to improve family physicians' detection and management of depression
Graham Worrall, John Angel, Paul Chaulk, Cordell Clarke, Megan Robbins
CMAJ Jul 1999, 161 (1) 37-40;
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Interpretation
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Evaluation of benefit to patients of training mental health professionals in suicide guidelines: cluster randomised trial
  • Prodromal schizophrenia in primary care: a randomised sensitisation study
  • Primary care management of major depression in patients aged >=55 years:: outcome of a randomised clinical trial
  • Cost-Effectiveness of Enhancing Primary Care Depression Management on an Ongoing Basis
  • Predictors of efficacy in depression prevention programmes: Meta-analysis
  • Improving the detection and management of depression in primary care
  • Managing depression as a chronic disease: a randomised trial of ongoing treatment in primary care
  • Interventions used in disease management programmes for patients with chronic illness---which ones work? Meta-analysis of published reports
  • Diagnosing and treating depression
  • Improving management of depression
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Effectiveness of in vitro fertilization with intracytoplasmic sperm injection for severe male infertility
  • Use of β-blocker therapy in older patients after acute myocardial infarction in Ontario
  • Response of paramedics to terminally ill patients with cardiac arrest: an ethical dilemma
Show more Evidence

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Sections
    • Guidelines
  • Topics
    • Psychiatry & mental health: adult
    • Medical careers

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of the resources on this site in an accessible format, please contact us at cmajgroup@cmaj.ca.

Powered by HighWire