The Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA) is a multi-site naturalistic cohort study to: (1) describe the long-term course and consequences of depressive and anxiety disorders, and (2)

Their differential course trajectory justifies separate consideration of pure depression, pure anxiety and comorbid anxiety-depression in clinical practice and psychiatric nosology.

Patients' illness representations and beliefs about treatment for depression and anxiety, as well as their perceived needs, are important for treatment. A systematic review was conducted of 71 studies describing the beliefs or perceived needs of patients and non-patients. Patients give multi-dimensional explanations for depression and see both psychological and medication treatment as helpful. People who suffer from depression have more positive beliefs about biological etiology and medication treatment than healthy people, or those with less severe depressive symptoms. Anxiety patients view psychological interventions as their best treatment option. Between 49% and 84% of the patients with depression or anxiety perceive a need for treatment, mostly for counseling and medication. All patients prefer psychological treatment forms to medication. A majority of patients view antidepressants as addictive and many perceive stigma and see practical and economic barriers to care. The most vulnerable groups in terms of seeking and receiving mental health care for depression and anxiety seem to be minority groups, as well as younger and older patients. More research is required into the specific needs of anxiety and depression patients. Open communication between patient and provider could lead to valuable improvements in treatment.

SynopsisThis article addresses the issues of recognition and labelling of psychological disorders (PDs) by general practitioners (GPs), and he association of recognition with management and outcome. Nearly 2000 attenders of 25 GPs were screened with the GHQ and a stratified sample of 296 patients was examined twice, using the Present State Examination (PSE) and Groningen Social Disability Schedule (GSDS).Prevalence rates of PDs according to the GHQ, GP and PSE were 46%, 26% and 15% respectively. For the 1450 ‘new’ patients, i.e. patients who had no PD diagnosed by their GP in the 12 months prior to the enrolment visit, these rates were 38%, 14%, and 10%. GPs missed half of the PSE cases and typically assigned non-specific diagnoses to recognized cases. Depressions were more readily recognized than anxiety disorders, and the detection rates for severe disorders were higher than those for less severe disorders.Recognition was strongly associated with management and outcome. Recognized as compared to non-recognized cases were more likely to receive mental health interventions from their GP and had better outcomes in terms of both psychopathology and social functioning. Initial severity, psychological reasons for encounter, recency of onset, diagnostic category, and psychiatric comorbidity were related to both better recognition and outcome. However, these variables could not account for the association of recognition with management and outcome, but some did modify the association. A causal model of the relationships is presented and possible reasons for non-recognition and for the beneficial effects of recognition are discussed.

No abstract

BackgroundIn view of the increasing number of senior citizens in our society who are likely to consult their GP with age-related health problems, it is important to identify and understand the preferences of this group in relation to the non-medical attributes of GP care. The aim of this study is to improve our understanding about preferences of this group of patients in relation to non-medical attributes of primary health care. This may help to develop strategies to improve the quality of care that senior citizens receive from their GP.MethodsSemi-structured interviews (N = 13) with senior citizens (65-91 years) in a judgement sample were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The analysis was conducted according to qualitative research methodology and the frame work method.ResultsContinuity of care providers, i.e. GP and practice nurses, GPs' expertise, trust, free choice of GP and a kind open attitude were highly valued. Accessibility by phone did not meet the expectations of the interviewees. The interviewees had difficulties with the GP out-of-office hours services. Spontaneous home visits were appreciated by some, but rejected by others. They preferred to receive verbal information rather than collecting information from leaflets. Distance to the practice and continuity of caregiver seemed to conflict for respondents.ConclusionsPreferences change in the process of ageing and growing health problems. GPs and their co-workers should be also aware of the changing needs of the elderly regarding non-medical attributes of GP care. Meeting their needs regarding non-medical attributes of primary health care is important to improve the quality of care.

Receiving help for common mental disorders depends not only on the objective need of the patient but also at least as much on the patients' own recognition that their problems have a mental health origin. Furthermore, in primary care especially, the patients' judgment of their providers' affective abilities may be decisive for being treated. For receiving specialized care, patients are also directed by their confidence in professional help.

PurposeThis study of Australian and Dutch people with anxiety or depressive disorder aims to examine people’s perceived needs and barriers to care, and to identify possible similarities and differences.MethodsData from the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-Being and the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety were combined into one data set. The Perceived Need for Care Questionnaire was taken in both studies. Logistic regression analyses were performed to check if similarities or differences between Australia and the Netherlands could be observed.ResultsIn both countries, a large proportion had unfulfilled needs and self-reliance was the most frequently named barrier to receive care. People from the Australian sample (N = 372) were more likely to perceive a need for medication (OR 1.8; 95% CI 1.3–2.5), counselling (OR 1.4; 95% CI 1.0–2.0) and practical support (OR 1.8; 95% CI 1.2–2.7), and people’s overall needs in Australia were more often fully met compared with those of the Dutch sample (N = 610). Australians were more often pessimistic about the helpfulness of medication (OR 3.8; 95% CI 1.4–10.7) and skills training (OR 3.0; 95% CI 1.1–8.2) and reported more often financial barriers for not having received (enough) information (OR 2.4; 95% CI 1.1–5.5) or counselling (OR 5.9; 95% CI 2.9–11.9).ConclusionsIn both countries, the vast majority of mental health care needs are not fulfilled. Solutions could be found in improving professionals’ skills or better collaboration. Possible explanations for the found differences in perceived need and barriers to care are discussed; these illustrate the value of examining perceived need across nations and suggest substantial commonalities of experience across the two countries.