↓ Skip to main content

Use of a self-rating scale to monitor depression severity in recurrent GP consultations in primary care – does it really make a difference? A randomised controlled study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Primary Care, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 Mendeley
Title
Use of a self-rating scale to monitor depression severity in recurrent GP consultations in primary care – does it really make a difference? A randomised controlled study
Published in
BMC Primary Care, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12875-016-0578-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. Wikberg, J. Westman, E-L. Petersson, M. E. H. Larsson, M. André, R. Eggertsen, J. Thorn, H. Ågren, C. Björkelund

Abstract

Little 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. Patients 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. There 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). When 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. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01402206 . Registered June 27 2011(retrospectively registered).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 120 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 18%
Researcher 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 21 17%
Unknown 36 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 25%
Psychology 17 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 7%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 44 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 March 2018.
All research outputs
#4,547,021
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#627
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,526
of 420,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#12
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 420,465 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.