Objective To assess how initial severity of depression affects the benefit derived from low intensity interventions for depression.Design Meta-analysis of individual patient data from 16 datasets comparing low intensity interventions with usual care.Setting Primary care and community settings.Participants 2470 patients with depression.Interventions Low intensity interventions for depression (such as guided self help by means of written materials and limited professional support, and internet delivered interventions).Main outcome measures Depression outcomes (measured with the Beck Depression Inventory or Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale), and the effect of initial depression severity on the effects of low intensity interventions.Results Although patients were referred for low intensity interventions, many had moderate to severe depression at baseline. We found a significant interaction between baseline severity and treatment effect (coefficient −0.1 (95% CI −0.19 to −0.002)), suggesting that patients who are more severely depressed at baseline demonstrate larger treatment effects than those who are less severely depressed. However, the magnitude of the interaction (equivalent to an additional drop of around one point on the Beck Depression Inventory for a one standard deviation increase in initial severity) was small and may not be clinically significant.Conclusions The data suggest that patients with more severe depression at baseline show at least as much clinical benefit from low intensity interventions as less severely depressed patients and could usefully be offered these interventions as part of a stepped care model.

Objective To explore the reasons behind the recent increase in antidepressant prescribing in the United Kingdom.Design Detailed retrospective analysis of data on general practitioner consultations and antidepressant prescribing. Data source Data were obtained from the general practice research database, which contains linked anonymised records of over 3 million patients registered in the UK. Data were extracted for all new incident cases of depression between 1993 and 2005.

No abstract

Primary care professionals identify a number of challenges in care for multimorbidity and adopt a particular model of decision making to deliver care for multiple individual conditions. However, they did not describe specific decision making around managing multimorbidity per se.

No abstract

Objective To measure the effect of behaviourally oriented counselling in general practice on healthy behaviour and biological risk factors in patients at increased risk of coronary heart disease. Design Cluster randomised controlled trial. Participants 883 men and women selected for the presence of one or more modifiable risk factors: regular cigarette smoking, high serum cholesterol concentration (6.5-9.0 mmol/l), and high body mass index (25-35) combined with low physical activity. Intervention Brief behavioural counselling, on the basis of the stage of change model, carried out by practice nurses to reduce smoking and dietary fat intake and to increase regular physical activity. Main outcome measures Questionnaire measures of diet, exercise, and smoking habits, and blood pressure, serum total cholesterol concentration, weight, body mass index, and smoking cessation (with biochemical validation) at 4 and 12 months. Results Favourable differences were recorded in the intervention group for dietary fat intake, regular exercise, and cigarettes smoked per day at 4 and 12 months. Systolic blood pressure was reduced to a greater extent in the intervention group at 4 but not at 12 months. No differences were found between groups in changes in total serum cholesterol concentration, weight, body mass index, diastolic pressure, or smoking cessation. Conclusions Brief behavioural counselling by practice nurses led to improvements in healthy behaviour. More extended counselling to help patients sustain and build on behaviour changes may be required before differences in biological risk factors emerge.

We found insufficient evidence to support the use of routine outcome monitoring using PROMs in the treatment of CMHDs, in terms of improving patient outcomes or in improving management. The findings are subject to considerable uncertainty however, due to the high risk of bias in the large majority of trials meeting the inclusion criteria, which means further research is very likely to have an important impact on the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. More research of better quality is therefore required, particularly in primary care where most CMHDs are treated.Future research should address issues of blinding of assessors and attrition, and measure a range of relevant symptom outcomes, as well as possible harmful effects of monitoring, health-related quality of life, social functioning, and costs. Studies should include people treated with drugs as well as psychological therapies, and should follow them up for longer than six months.

Some Illness Perception Questionnaire dimensions had small significant associations with HbA(1c) , although the direction of these associations remains unclear. There was also tentative evidence that illness perceptions can be positively changed through targeted intervention and that these changes may also impact on glycaemic control. Future research could benefit from tailoring intervention content to perceptions that are most highly associated with HbA(1c).