Interventions to improve management of anxiety disorders in general practice: a systematic review

被引:0
作者
Heideman, J
van Rijswijk, E
van Lin, N
de Loos, S
Laurant, M
Wensing, M
de Lisdonk, EV
Grol, R
机构
[1] Univ Med Ctr Nijmegen, Ctr Qual Care Res WOK, NL-6500 HB Nijmegen, Netherlands
[2] Univ Med Ctr Nijmegen, Dept Gen Practice, Nijmegen, Netherlands
关键词
anxiety; quality of care; primary care; systematic review;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Background Anxiety disorders are common in general practice and are associated with several problems regarding recognition and management. Aim To systematically evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving recognition, diagnosis, and management of patients with anxiety disorders. Design of study Systematic review. Method MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and the Cochrane Clinical Trials' Register were searched up until 2003. Randomised controlled trials, controlled before/after trials, and interrupted time series for professional, organisational, financial, and regulatory interventions were eligible. Primary effect measures consisted of anxiety outcomes, diagnosis, prescription, and referral. Two reviewers independently made eligibility judgments: eight out of 563 articles were found to be eligible. Two reviewers participated independently in the quality assessment and data extraction process using a standardised form based on the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care checklist. Relative risks or standardised mean differences were calculated when possible. Results Four professional interventions and three organisational interventions were examined. In general, the professional interventions seemed to increase recognition, referral, and prescription as well as improving anxiety outcomes. Two out of three organisational interventions showed a positive effect on anxiety outcomes. The one study that took prescription into account showed no effect. Conclusions The quality of care for patients with anxiety can be improved. A combination of professional and organisational interventions in which an external expert is introduced seems to be most promising. Additional research is nevertheless necessary to determine the exact effects of such interventions using patient effect measures, economic evaluations, and feasibility studies.
引用
收藏
页码:867 / 874
页数:8
相关论文
共 38 条
[1]   CHANGING THE PSYCHIATRIC KNOWLEDGE OF PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANS - THE EFFECTS OF A BRIEF INTERVENTION ON CLINICAL-DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT [J].
ANDERSEN, SM ;
HARTHORN, BH .
GENERAL HOSPITAL PSYCHIATRY, 1990, 12 (03) :177-190
[2]  
ANDREWS G, 1995, TREATMENT ANXIETY DI
[3]  
Ballenger JC, 2004, J CLIN PSYCHIAT, V65, P55
[4]  
Ballenger JC, 2001, J CLIN PSYCHIAT, V62, P11
[5]  
Ballenger JC, 1998, J CLIN PSYCHIAT, V59, P54
[6]  
Ballenger JC, 1998, J CLIN PSYCHIAT, V59, P47
[7]   Measuring the need for psychiatric treatment in the general population: The community version of the MRC Needs for Care Assessment [J].
Bebbington, P ;
Brewin, CR ;
Marsden, L ;
Lesage, A .
PSYCHOLOGICAL MEDICINE, 1996, 26 (02) :229-236
[8]   THE COCHRANE COLLABORATION - PREPARING, MAINTAINING, AND DISSEMINATING SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS OF THE EFFECTS OF HEALTH-CARE [J].
BERO, L ;
RENNIE, D .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1995, 274 (24) :1935-1938
[9]  
Bero LA, 1998, BMJ-BRIT MED J, V317, P465
[10]   Prevalence of psychiatric disorder in the general population: results of the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS) [J].
Bijl, RV ;
Ravelli, A ;
van Zessen, G .
SOCIAL PSYCHIATRY AND PSYCHIATRIC EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1998, 33 (12) :587-595