Patient-reported outcome measures for monitoring primary care patients with depression: the PROMDEP cluster RCT and economic evaluation
Tony Kendrick,Christopher Dowrick,Glyn Lewis,Michael Moore,Geraldine M Leydon,Adam Wa Geraghty,Gareth Griffiths,Shihua Zhu,Guiqing Lily Yao,Carl May,Mark Gabbay,Rachel Dewar-Haggart,Samantha Williams,Lien Bui,Natalie Thompson,Lauren Bridewell,Emilia Trapasso,Tasneem Patel,Molly McCarthy,Naila Khan,Helen Page,Emma Corcoran,Jane Sungmin Hahn,Molly Bird,Mekeda X Logan,Brian Chi Fung Ching,Riya Tiwari,Anna Hunt,Beth Stuart
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3310/PLRQ4216
Abstract:Background: Guidelines on the management of depression recommend that practitioners use patient-reported outcome measures for the follow-up monitoring of symptoms, but there is a lack of evidence of benefit in terms of patient outcomes. Objective: To test using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 questionnaire as a patient-reported outcome measure for monitoring depression, training practitioners in interpreting scores and giving patients feedback. Design: Parallel-group, cluster-randomised superiority trial; 1 : 1 allocation to intervention and control. Setting: UK primary care (141 group general practices in England and Wales). Inclusion criteria: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with a new episode of depressive disorder or symptoms, recruited mainly through medical record searches, plus opportunistically in consultations. Exclusions: Current depression treatment, dementia, psychosis, substance misuse and risk of suicide. Intervention: Administration of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 questionnaire with patient feedback soon after diagnosis, and at follow-up 10-35 days later, compared with usual care. Primary outcome: Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, symptom scores at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes: Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, scores at 26 weeks; antidepressant drug treatment and mental health service contacts; social functioning (Work and Social Adjustment Scale) and quality of life (EuroQol 5-Dimension, five-level) at 12 and 26 weeks; service use over 26 weeks to calculate NHS costs; patient satisfaction at 26 weeks (Medical Informant Satisfaction Scale); and adverse events. Sample size: The original target sample of 676 patients recruited was reduced to 554 due to finding a significant correlation between baseline and follow-up values for the primary outcome measure. Randomisation: Remote computerised randomisation with minimisation by recruiting university, small/large practice and urban/rural location. Blinding: Blinding of participants was impossible given the open cluster design, but self-report outcome measures prevented observer bias. Analysis was blind to allocation. Analysis: Linear mixed models were used, adjusted for baseline depression, baseline anxiety, sociodemographic factors, and clustering including practice as random effect. Quality of life and costs were analysed over 26 weeks. Qualitative interviews: Practitioner and patient interviews were conducted to reflect on trial processes and use of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 using the Normalization Process Theory framework. Results: Three hundred and two patients were recruited in intervention arm practices and 227 patients were recruited in control practices. Primary outcome data were collected for 252 (83.4%) and 195 (85.9%), respectively. No significant difference in Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, score was found at 12 weeks (adjusted mean difference -0.46, 95% confidence interval -2.16 to 1.26). Nor were significant differences found in Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd Edition, score at 26 weeks, social functioning, patient satisfaction or adverse events. EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, quality-of-life scores favoured the intervention arm at 26 weeks (adjusted mean difference 0.053, 95% confidence interval 0.013 to 0.093). However, quality-adjusted life-years over 26 weeks were not significantly greater (difference 0.0013, 95% confidence interval -0.0157 to 0.0182). Costs were lower in the intervention arm but, again, not significantly (-£163, 95% confidence interval -£349 to £28). Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses, therefore, suggested that the intervention was dominant over usual care, but with considerable uncertainty around the point estimates. Patients valued using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 to compare scores at baseline and follow-up, whereas practitioner views were more mixed, with some considering it too time-consuming. Conclusions: We found no evidence of improved depression management or outcome at 12 weeks from using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, but patients' quality of life was better at 26 weeks, perhaps because feedback of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores increased their awareness of improvement in their depression and reduced their anxiety. Further research in primary care should evaluate patient-reported outcome measures including anxiety symptoms, administered remotely, with algorithms delivering clear recommendations for changes in treatment. Study registration: This study is registered as IRAS250225 and ISRCTN17299295. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/42/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 17. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.