Skip to main content
PMC home page
The British Journal of General Practice logoLink to The British Journal of General Practice
. 1998 Dec;48(437):1840–1844.

The effects of detection and treatment on the outcome of major depression in primary care: a naturalistic study in 15 cities.

D Goldberg 1, M Privett 1, B Ustun 1, G Simon 1, M Linden 1
PMCID: PMC1313290  PMID: 10198504

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study reports the responses of patients with confirmed depressive illnesses to different treatments in the WHO Mental Disorders in General Health Care study, conducted in 15 cities around the world. AIM: To discover how depressions recognized by the doctor compare with unrecognized depressions, both in terms of the initial illnesses and their outcomes, and to compare the outcomes of those depressions treated with antidepressants with those treated with daytime sedatives. METHOD: The design of the study was naturalistic, in that physicians were free to treat patients however they wished. Patients with confirmed depressive illnesses were assigned to four groups: treatment with an antidepressant; treatment with a daytime sedative (usually a benzodiazepine); patients recognized as having depression by the physician but were not offered drug treatment; and patients unrecognized as having depression by their physician. RESULTS: Both groups receiving drugs had illnesses of equal severity, were demographically similar to one another, and had similar previous histories of depression. Those receiving antidepressants had significantly fewer overall symptoms and fewer suicidal thoughts than those treated with sedatives. By the end of one year, differences between the groups had disappeared: patients not given drugs had milder illnesses but did significantly better than those receiving drugs, both in terms of symptoms lost and their diagnostic status. Unrecognized depressions were less severe than recognized depressions, and had a similar course over the year. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving antidepressants were better in terms of overall symptoms and suicidal thoughts than those treated with sedatives at three months, but this advantage does not persist. Depression emerges as a chronic disorder at one-year follow-up--about 60% of those treated with drugs, and 50% of the milder depressions, still meet criteria for caseness. The study does not support the view that failure to recognize depression has serious adverse consequences, but, in view of the poor prognosis of depression, measures to improve compliance with treatment would appear to be indicated.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (36.9 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Banerji J. R., Brantingham P., McEwan G. D., Mason J., Munt D. F., Renton R. L., Scott A. P., Strakova J. M., Stevens V. A comparison of alprazolam with amitriptyline in the treatment of patients with neurotic or reactive depression. A report of a randomised, double blind study by a General Practitioner Working Party. Ir J Med Sci. 1989 May;158(5):110–113. doi: 10.1007/BF02943038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Hazell P., O'Connell D., Heathcote D., Robertson J., Henry D. Efficacy of tricyclic drugs in treating child and adolescent depression: a meta-analysis. BMJ. 1995 Apr 8;310(6984):897–901. doi: 10.1136/bmj.310.6984.897. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Johnson D. A. A study of the use of antidepressant medication in general practice. Br J Psychiatry. 1974 Aug;125(0):186–192. doi: 10.1192/bjp.125.2.186. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Katon W., Robinson P., Von Korff M., Lin E., Bush T., Ludman E., Simon G., Walker E. A multifaceted intervention to improve treatment of depression in primary care. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1996 Oct;53(10):924–932. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1996.01830100072009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Laws D., Ashford J. J., Anstee J. A. A multicentre double-blind comparative trial of fluvoxamine versus lorazepam in mixed anxiety and depression treated in general practice. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1990 Feb;81(2):185–189. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1990.tb06476.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Mynors-Wallis L. M., Gath D. H., Lloyd-Thomas A. R., Tomlinson D. Randomised controlled trial comparing problem solving treatment with amitriptyline and placebo for major depression in primary care. BMJ. 1995 Feb 18;310(6977):441–445. doi: 10.1136/bmj.310.6977.441. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Paykel E. S., Hollyman J. A., Freeling P., Sedgwick P. Predictors of therapeutic benefit from amitriptyline in mild depression: a general practice placebo-controlled trial. J Affect Disord. 1988 Jan-Feb;14(1):83–95. doi: 10.1016/0165-0327(88)90075-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Quitkin F. M., Stewart J. W., McGrath P. J., Tricamo E., Rabkin J. G., Ocepek-Welikson K., Nunes E., Harrison W., Klein D. F. Columbia atypical depression. A subgroup of depressives with better response to MAOI than to tricyclic antidepressants or placebo. Br J Psychiatry Suppl. 1993 Sep;(21):30–34. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Robins L. N., Wing J., Wittchen H. U., Helzer J. E., Babor T. F., Burke J., Farmer A., Jablenski A., Pickens R., Regier D. A. The Composite International Diagnostic Interview. An epidemiologic Instrument suitable for use in conjunction with different diagnostic systems and in different cultures. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1988 Dec;45(12):1069–1077. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1988.01800360017003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Schulberg H. C., Block M. R., Madonia M. J., Scott C. P., Rodriguez E., Imber S. D., Perel J., Lave J., Houck P. R., Coulehan J. L. Treating major depression in primary care practice. Eight-month clinical outcomes. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1996 Oct;53(10):913–919. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1996.01830100061008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Simon G. E., VonKorff M. Recognition, management, and outcomes of depression in primary care. Arch Fam Med. 1995 Feb;4(2):99–105. doi: 10.1001/archfami.4.2.99. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Stewart A. L., Hays R. D., Ware J. E., Jr The MOS short-form general health survey. Reliability and validity in a patient population. Med Care. 1988 Jul;26(7):724–735. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198807000-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Tan R. S., Barlow R. J., Abel C., Reddy S., Palmer A. J., Fletcher A. E., Nicholl C. G., Pitt B. M., Bulpitt C. J. The effect of low dose lofepramine in depressed elderly patients in general medical wards. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1994 Apr;37(4):321–324. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.1994.tb04284.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Tiemens B. G., Ormel J., Simon G. E. Occurrence, recognition, and outcome of psychological disorders in primary care. Am J Psychiatry. 1996 May;153(5):636–644. doi: 10.1176/ajp.153.5.636. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Wiersma D., DeJong A., Ormel J. The Groningen Social Disabilities Schedule: development, relationship with I.C.I.D.H., and psychometric properties. Int J Rehabil Res. 1988;11(3):213–224. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The British Journal of General Practice are provided here courtesy of Royal College of General Practitioners

RESOURCES