ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to explore primary care patients’ experiences of Internet mediated cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) depression treatment.DesignQualitative study. Data were collected from focus group discussions and individual interviews.SettingPrimary care.MethodData were analysed by systematic text condensation by Malterud.SubjectsThirteen patients having received iCBT for depression within the PRIM-NET study.Main outcome measuresAnalysis presented different aspects of patients’ experiences of iCBT.ResultsThe informants described a need for face-to-face meetings with a therapist. A therapist who performed check-ups and supported the iCBT process seemed important. iCBT implies that a responsibility for the treatment is taken by the patient, and some patients felt left alone, while others felt well and secure. This was a way to work in privacy and freedom with a smoothly working technology although there was a lack of confidence and a feeling of risk regarding iCBT.ConclusioniCBT is an attractive alternative to some patients with depression in primary care, but not to all. An individual treatment design seems to be preferred, and elements of iCBT could be included as a complement when treating depression in primary care. Such a procedure could relieve the overall treatment burden of depression.Key pointsInternet mediated cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) can be effective in treating depression in primary care, but patients’ experiences of iCBT are rarely studied Most patients express a need for human contact, real-time interaction, dialogue and guidance when treated for depression.The patient’s opportunity to influence the practical circumstances about iCBT is a success factor, though this freedom brings a large responsibility upon the receiver.An individual treatment design seems to be crucial, and elements of iCBT could be included as a complement to face-to-face meetings.

BackgroundDepression is one of the leading causes of disability and affects 10-15% of the population. The majority of people with depressive symptoms seek care and are treated in primary care. Evidence internationally for high quality care supports collaborative care with a care manager. Our aim was to study clinical effectiveness of a care manager intervention in management of primary care patients with depression in Sweden.MethodsIn a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial 23 primary care centers (PCCs), urban and rural, included patients aged ≥ 18 years with a new (< 1 month) depression diagnosis. Intervention consisted of Care management including continuous contact between care manager and patient, a structured management plan, and behavioral activation, altogether around 6-7 contacts over 12 weeks. Control condition was care as usual (CAU). Outcome measures: Depression symptoms (measured by Mongomery-Asberg depression score-self (MADRS-S) and BDI-II), quality of life (QoL) (EQ-5D), return to work and sick leave, service satisfaction, and antidepressant medication. Data were analyzed with the intention-to-treat principle.ResultsOne hundred ninety two patients with depression at PCCs with care managers were allocated to the intervention group, and 184 patients at control PCCs were allocated to the control group. Mean depression score measured by MADRS-S was 2.17 lower in the intervention vs. the control group (95% CI [0.56; 3.79], p = 0.009) at 3 months and 2.27 lower (95% CI [0.59; 3.95], p = 0.008) at 6 months; corresponding BDI-II scores were 1.96 lower (95% CI [− 0.19; 4.11], p = 0.07) in the intervention vs. control group at 6 months. Remission was significantly higher in the intervention group at 6 months (61% vs. 47%, p = 0.006). QoL showed a steeper increase in the intervention group at 3 months (p = 0.01). During the first 3 months, return to work was significantly higher in the intervention vs. the control group. Patients in the intervention group were more consistently on antidepressant medication than patients in the control group.ConclusionsCare managers for depression treatment have positive effects on depression course, return to work, remission frequency, antidepressant frequency, and quality of life compared to usual care and is valued by the patients.Trial registrationIdentifier: NCT02378272. February 2, 2015. Retrospectively registered.

Background In an earlier study, PRIM-CARE RCT, a care manager implementation at the primary care centre showed improved return to work and reduced sick leave for patients with CMD. To further improve return to work, the project Co-Work-Care added a person-centered dialogue meeting between the patient, the employer and the rehabilitation coordinator, preceded by an increased collaboration between care manager, rehabilitation coordinator and GP. In this first qualitative study of the Co-Work-Care project, we explored how care managers and rehabilitation coordinators experienced the Co-Work-Care model. The purpose of this study was to explore care managers’ and rehabilitation coordinators’ perceptions and experiences of a close collaboration and the use of the person-centred dialogue meeting. Methods From an ongoing RCT with 20 primary care centres, care managers (CMs) (n = 13) and rehabilitation coordinators (RCs) (n = 12) participated in a qualitative study with focus groups. The study was conducted in the primary health care in a Swedish region. The data was analysed with Systematic Text Condensation by Malterud. Results Seven codes describing the participants’ experiences of the Co-Work-Care model were identified: 1) The importance of collaboration at the primary care centre, 2) Collaboration and division of roles between the RC and the CM, 3) Collaboration with the General practitioner (GP), 4) The person-centred dialogue meeting, 5) Initiating the person-centred dialogue meeting, 6) The person-centred dialogue meeting to improve collaboration with the employer, and 7) The person-centred dialogue meeting to teach about the return to work process. Conclusion The increased collaboration within the Co-Work-Care model created a common picture and understanding of the patient’s situation. The person-centred dialogue meeting in the rehabilitation process became a bridge between the employer and the patient. Trial registration NCT03250026 (registered August 15, 2017).

BackgroundLittle information is available about whether the use of self-assessment instruments in primary care affects depression course and outcome. The purpose was to evaluate whether using a depression self-rating scale in recurrent person-centred GP consultations affected depression severity, quality of life, medication use, and sick leave frequency.MethodsPatients in the intervention group met their GP regularly at least 4 times during the 3 months intervention. In addition to treatment as usual (TAU), patients completed a self-assessment instrument (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale) on each occasion, and then GPs used the completed instrument as the basis for a person-centred discussion of changes in depression symptoms. The control group received TAU. Frequency of visits in the TAU arm was the result of the GPs’ and patients’ joint assessments of care need in each case.Depression severity was measured with Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), quality of life with EQ-5D, and psychological well-being with the General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12). Data on sick leave, antidepressant and sedatives use, and care contacts were collected from electronic patient records. All variables were measured at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months. Mean intra-individual changes were compared between the intervention and TAU group.ResultsThere were no significant differences between the intervention and control group in depression severity reduction or remission rate, change in quality of life, psychological well-being, sedative prescriptions, or sick leave during the whole 12-month follow-up. However, significantly more patients in the intervention group continued antidepressants until the 6 month follow-up (86/125 vs 78/133, p < 0.05).ConclusionsWhen GPs used a depression self-rating scale in recurrent consultations, patients more often continued antidepressant medication according to guidelines, compared to TAU patients. However, reduction of depressive symptoms, remission rate, quality of life, psychological well-being, sedative use, sick leave, and health care use 4-12 months was not significantly different from the TAU group. These findings suggest that frequent use of depression rating scales in person-centred primary care consultations has no further additional effect on patients’ depression or well-being, sick leave, or health care use.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01402206. Registered June 27 2011(retrospectively registered).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-016-0578-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectiveThe aim of the current study was to better understand how patients with depression perceive the use of MADRS-S in primary care consultations with GPs.DesignQualitative study. Focus group discussion and analysis through Systematic Text Condensation.SettingPrimary Health Care, Region Västra Götaland, Sweden.SubjectsNine patients with mild/moderate depression who participated in a RCT evaluating the effects of regular use of the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Self-assessment scale (MADRS-S) during the GP consultations.Main Outcome measurePatients’ experiences and perceptions of the use of MADRS-S in primary care.ResultsThree categories emerged from the analysis: (I) confirmation; MADRS-S shows that I have depression and how serious it is, (II) centeredness; the most important thing is for the GP to listen to and take me seriously and (III) clarification; MADRS-S helps me understand why I need treatment for depression.ConclusionUse of MADRS-S was perceived as a confirmation for the patients that they had depression and how serious it was. MADRS-S showed the patients something black on white that describes and confirms the diagnosis. The informants emphasized the importance of patient-centeredness; of being listened to and to be taken seriously during the consultation. Use of self-assessment scales such as MADRS-S could find its place, but needs to adjust to the multifaceted environment that primary care provides.Key PointsPatients with depression in primary care perceive that the use of a self-assessment scale in the consultation purposefully can contribute in several ways. The scale contributes toConfirmation: MADRS-S shows that I have depression and how serious it is.Centeredness: The most important thing is for the GP to listen to and take me seriously.Clarification: MADRS-S helps me understand why I need treatment for depression.