Mental health problems are common in primary health care, particularly anxiety and depression. This study aims to estimate the prevalence of common mental disorders and their associations with socio-demographic characteristics in primary care in Brazil (Family Health Strategy). It involved a multicenter cross-sectional study with patients from Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Fortaleza (Ceará State) and Porto Alegre (Rio Grande do Sul State), assessed using the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HAD). The rate of mental disorders in patients from Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Fortaleza and Porto Alegre were found to be, respectively, 51.9%, 53.3%, 64.3% and 57.7% with significant differences between Porto Alegre and Fortaleza compared to Rio de Janeiro after adjusting for confounders. Prevalence proportions of mental problems were especially common for females, the unemployed, those with less education and those with lower incomes. In the context of the Brazilian government's moves towards developing primary health care and reorganizing mental health policies it is relevant to consider common mental disorders as a priority alongside other chronic health conditions.

The two five-item screening scales for anxiety and depression provide a practical way for PCPs to evaluate the likelihood of mood and anxiety disorders without paper and pencil measures that are not feasible in many settings. These scales may provide substantially improved case detection as compared to current primary care practice and a realistic alternative to complex diagnostic algorithms used by specialist mental health professionals.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to detect the prevalence of common mental disorders among patients seen by doctors at family health program units in Petrópolis-RJ, and to establish their nosological profile. METHOD: The population of the study included all 18 to 65-year-old patient who attended any family health program units included in the study during a 30-day period, between August and December 2002 (n = 714). The prevalence of common mental disorders was assessed using the General Health Questionnaire, 12 item version. In order to establish the nosological profile, the Composite International Diagnostic Interview was administered to all common mental disorders positive patients who accepted to return (n = 215). RESULTS: At the cut-off point of 2/3 the common mental disorders prevalence was 56% and for 4/5, it was 33%. The most frequent nosological categories found among common mental disorders positive patients were depression and anxiety categories along with posttraumatic stress disorder, somatoform pain disorder and dissociative disorders. There was a high frequency of comorbidity, especially between anxiety, depression, somatoform and dissociative disorders. CONCLUSIONS: The common mental disorders prevalence and the nosological profile found in FHP were similar to those of other primary care studies in Brazil, but some disorders (posttraumatic stress disorder, somatoform pain disorder and dissociative disorders) that had not been previously studied in this context were also very frequent. The high common mental disorders prevalence found reinforces the urgent need for systematic inclusion of this level of care in mental health assistance planning.

OBJECTIVE: Common mental disorders are present in more than 50% of patients attending primary care clinics. The main objectives of this study were to detect whether there is any special group of patients within the Family Health Strategy that should be considered to be in greater risk for common mental disorders and to recommend alternative interventions to aid these patients. METHOD: In 2002, a cross-sectional study on common mental disorders seen at Family Health Strategy centers was conducted in Petrópolis, State of Rio de Janeiro. RESULTS: Common mental disorders were associated with women (OR = 2.90; 95% CI 1.82-4.32), younger than 45 years of age (OR = 1.43; 95% CI 1.02-2.01), with a monthly per capita family income of less than US$40.00 (OR = 1.68; 95% CI 1.20-2.39), and without a partner (OR = 1.71; 95% CI 1.22-2.39). Illiteracy was associated with common mental disorders among patients who were not extremely poor. Social support networks such as going often to church (OR = 0.62; 95% CI 0.43-0.89); participating in artistic and sporting activities (OR = 0.42; 95% CI 0.26-0.70) and having at least four trusted relatives or friends (OR = 0.53; 95% CI 0.31-0.91) was inversely associated with common mental disorders. DISCUSSION: Poor women with little social support represent a special group at risk for common mental disorders in the primary care setting. Some countries have developed special interventions to treat patients with common mental disorders in primary care. CONCLUSION: Mental health care programs could include evidence-based psychosocial interventions to assist women in overcoming the vicious circle of poverty and dealing with their mental disorders.

Primary care differs considerably from specialist mental health settings: problems are presented in undifferentiated forms, with consequent difficulties in distinguishing between distress and disorder, and a complex relationship between psychological, mental and social problems and their temporal variations. Existing psychiatric diagnostic systems, including ICD-10-PHC and DSM-IV-PC, are often difficult to apply in primary care. They do not adequately address co-morbidity, the substantial prevalence of sub-threshold disorders or problems with cross-cultural applications. Their focus on diagnosis may be too restrictive, with a need to consider severity and impairment separately. ICPC-2, a classification system created specifically for use in primary care, provides advantages in that it allows for simple linkage between reason for encounter, diagnosis and intervention. It is both necessary and feasible to develop a classification system for mental health in primary care that can meet four basic criteria: (1) characterized by simplicity; (2) addressing not only diagnosis but also severity, chronicity and disability; (3) feasible for routine data gathering in primary care as well as for training; and (4) enabling efficient communication between primary and specialty mental health care.

Anxious depression is well received by primary care professionals, but BSS requires further modification. International field trials will be held to further test these new diagnoses in draft ICD-11-PHC.

No abstract

BackgroundCommunity-based primary mental health care is recommended in low and middle-income countries. The Brazilian Health System has been restructuring primary care by expanding its Family Health Strategy. Due to mental health problems, psychosocial vulnerability and accessibility, Matrix Support teams are being set up to broaden the professional scope of primary care. This paper aims to analyse the perceptions of health professionals and managers about the integration of primary care and mental health.MethodIn this mixed-method study 18 health managers and 24 professionals were interviewed from different primary and mental health care services in Rio de Janeiro. A semi-structured survey was conducted with 185 closed questions ranging from 1 to 5 and one open-ended question, to evaluate: access, gateway, trust, family focus, primary mental health interventions, mental health records, mental health problems, team collaboration, integration with community resources and primary mental health education. Two comparisons were made: health managers and professionals’ (Mann-Whitney non-parametric test) and health managers’ perceptions (Kruskall-Wallis non parametric-test) in 4 service designs (General Traditional Outpatients, Mental Health Specialised Outpatients, Psychosocial Community Centre and Family Health Strategy)(SPSS version 17.0). Qualitative data were subjected to Framework Analysis.ResultsFirstly, health managers and professionals’ perceptions converged in all components, except the health record system. Secondly, managers’ perceptions in traditional services contrasted with managers’ perceptions in community-based services in components such as mental health interventions and team collaboration, and converged in gateway, trust, record system and primary mental health education. Qualitative data revealed an acceptance of mental health and primary care integration, but a lack of communication between institutions. The Mixed Method demonstrated that interviewees consider mental health and primary care integration as a requirement of the system, while their perceptions and the model of work produced by the institutional culture are inextricably linked.ConclusionThere is a gap between health managers’ and professionals’ understanding of community-based primary mental health care. The integration of different processes of work entails both rethinking workforce actions and institutional support to help make changes.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1740-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.