Background: The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) is a self-report questionnaire that has been developed in primary care to distinguish non-specific general distress from depression, anxiety and somatization. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate its criterion and construct validity.

Objective:Borderline personality disorder affects up to 2% of the population and is associated with poor functioning, low quality of life and increased mortality. Psychotherapy is the treatment of choice, but it is unclear whether specialized psychotherapies (dialectical behavior therapy, mentalization-based treatment, transference-focused therapy and schema therapy) are more effective than non-specialized approaches (e.g. protocolized psychological treatment, general psychiatric management). The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the effectiveness of these psychotherapies.Methods:PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched from inception to November 2017. Included randomized controlled trials were assessed on risk of bias and outcomes were meta-analyzed. Confidence in the results was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method. The review has been reported following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.Results:A total of 20 studies with 1375 participants were included. Specialized psychotherapies, when compared to treatment as usual or community treatment by experts, were associated with a medium effect based on moderate quality evidence on overall borderline personality disorder severity (standardized mean difference = –0.59 [95% confidence interval: –0.90, –0.28]), and dialectical behavior therapy, when compared to treatment as usual, with a small to medium effect on self-injury (standardized mean difference = –0.40 [95% confidence interval: –0.66, –0.13]). Other effect estimates were often inconclusive, mostly due to imprecision.Conclusion:There is moderate quality evidence that specialized psychotherapies are effective in reducing overall borderline personality disorder severity. However, further research should identify which patient groups profit most of the specialized therapies.

No abstract

An effective treatment already exists for many diseases. In these cases the effectiveness of a new treatment may be established by showing that the new treatment is as effective as (i.e., equivalent to) or at least as effective as (i.e., noninferior to) the old treatment. For an economic evaluation accompanying a clinical equivalence or noninferiority trial it is important to decide before the start of the study on the appropriate research question. In many cases the objective of the economic evaluation will be to show equivalence or noninferiority of the cost-effectiveness of the treatments. This has major implications for the design and analysis of the economic evaluation. In this article we propose methods for the analysis of economic equivalence and noninferiority studies that are similar to the methods applied to clinical equivalence and noninferiority trials. Furthermore, cost-effectiveness planes prove to be a valuable tool in the interpretation of the results in an economic equivalence or noninferiority trial. The concepts described in the article are illustrated using the results from an economic noninferiority trial.

BackgroundDepression is a common mental disorder with a high burden of disease which is mainly treated in primary care. It is unclear to what extent stepped care principles are applied in routine primary care. The first aim of this explorative study was to examine the gap between routine primary depression care and optimal care, as formulated in the depression guidelines. The second aim was to explore the facilitators and barriers that affect the provision of optimal care.MethodsOptimal care was operationalised by indicators covering the entire continuum of depression care: from prevention to chronic depression. Routine care was investigated by interviewing general practitioners (GPs) individually and together with other mental health care providers about the depression care they delivered collaboratively. Qualitative analysis of transcripts was performed using thematic coding. Additionally, the GPs completed a self-report questionnaire.ResultsSix GPs and 22 other (mostly primary) mental health care providers participated. The GPs and their primary care colleagues embraced a general stepped care approach. They offered psycho-education and counselling to mildly depressed patients. When the treatment effects were not satisfactory or patients were more severely depressed, the GPs offered, or referred to, psychotherapy or pharmacotherapy. Patients with a complex and severe depressive disorder were directly referred to specialised mental health care. However, GPs relied on their clinical judgment and rarely used instruments to assess and monitor the severity of depressive symptoms. Structured, evidence based interventions such as self-management and e-health were rarely offered to patients with depressive symptoms. Specific psychological interventions for relapse prevention or for chronically depressed patients were not available. A wide range of influencing factors for the provision of optimal depression care were put forward. Close collaboration with other mental health care professionals was considered an important factor for improvement by nearly all GPs.ConclusionsThe management of depression in primary care seems in line with stepped care principles, although it can be improved by applying more elements of a stepped care approach. Collaboration between GPs and mental health care providers in primary care and secondary care should be enhanced.