This study aimed to investigate general factors associated with prognosis regardless of the type of treatment received, for adults with depression in primary care.

We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central (inception to 12/01/2020) for RCTs that included the most commonly used comprehensive measure of depressive and anxiety disorder symptoms and diagnoses, in primary care depression RCTs (the Revised Clinical Interview Schedule: CIS-R). Two-stage random-effects meta-analyses were conducted.

Twelve (n = 6024) of thirteen eligible studies (n = 6175) provided individual patient data. There was a 31% (95%CI: 25 to 37) difference in depressive symptoms at 3–4 months per standard deviation increase in baseline depressive symptoms. Four additional factors: the duration of anxiety; duration of depression; comorbid panic disorder; and a history of antidepressant treatment were also independently associated with poorer prognosis. There was evidence that the difference in prognosis when these factors were combined could be of clinical importance. Adding these variables improved the amount of variance explained in 3–4 month depressive symptoms from 16% using depressive symptom severity alone to 27%. Risk of bias (assessed with QUIPS) was low in all studies and quality (assessed with GRADE) was high. Sensitivity analyses did not alter our conclusions.

When adults seek treatment for depression clinicians should routinely assess for the duration of anxiety, duration of depression, comorbid panic disorder, and a history of antidepressant treatment alongside depressive symptom severity. This could provide clinicians and patients with useful and desired information to elucidate prognosis and aid the clinical management of depression.

Depression is a prevalent long-term condition that is associated with substantial resource use. Telehealth may offer a cost-effective means of supporting the management of people with depression.

To investigate the cost-effectiveness of a telehealth intervention (‘Healthlines’) for patients with depression.

A prospective patient-level economic evaluation conducted alongside a randomised controlled trial. Patients were recruited through primary care, and the intervention was delivered via a telehealth service. Participants with a confirmed diagnosis of depression and PHQ-9 score ≥10 were recruited from 43 English general practices. A series of up to 10 scripted, theory-led, telephone encounters with health information advisers supported participants to effect a behaviour change, use online resources, optimise medication and improve adherence. The intervention was delivered alongside usual care and was designed to support rather than duplicate primary care. Cost-effectiveness from a combined health and social care perspective was measured by net monetary benefit at the end of 12 months of follow-up, calculated from incremental cost and incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost–consequence analysis included cost of lost productivity, participant out-of-pocket expenditure and the clinical outcome.

A total of 609 participants were randomised – 307 to receive the Healthlines intervention plus usual care and 302 to receive usual care alone. Forty-five per cent of participants had missing quality of life data, 41% had missing cost data and 51% of participants had missing data on either cost or utility, or both. Multiple imputation was used for the base-case analysis. The intervention was associated with incremental mean per-patient National Health Service/personal social services cost of £168 (95% CI £43 to £294) and an incremental QALY gain of 0.001 (95% CI −0.023 to 0.026). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £132 630. Net monetary benefit at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 was –£143 (95% CI –£164 to –£122) and the probability of the intervention being cost-effective at this threshold value was 0.30. Productivity costs were higher in the intervention arm, but out-of-pocket expenses were lower.

The Healthlines service was acceptable to patients as a means of condition management, and response to treatment after 4 months was higher for participants randomised to the intervention. However, the positive average intervention effect size was modest, and incremental costs were high relative to a small incremental QALY gain at 12 months. The intervention is not likely to be cost-effective in its current form.

To map the availability and types of depression and anxiety groups, to examine men's experiences and perception of this support as well as the role of health professionals in accessing support.

The best ways to support men with depression and anxiety in primary care are not well understood. Group-based interventions are sometimes offered but it is unknown whether this type of support is acceptable to men.

Interviews with 17 men experiencing depression or anxiety. A further 12 interviews were conducted with staff who worked with depressed men (half of whom also experienced depression or anxiety themselves). There were detailed observations of four mental health groups and a mapping exercise of groups in a single English city (Bristol).

Some men attend groups for support with depression and anxiety. There was a strong theme of isolated men, some reluctant to discuss problems with their close family and friends but attending groups. Peer support, reduced stigma and opportunities for leadership were some of the identified benefits of groups. The different types of groups may relate to different potential member audiences. For example, unemployed men with greater mental health and support needs attended a professionally led group whereas men with milder mental health problems attended peer-led groups. Barriers to help seeking were commonly reported, many of which related to cultural norms about how men should behave. General practitioners played a key role in helping men to acknowledge their experiences of depression and anxiety, listening and providing information on the range of support options, including groups. Men with depression and anxiety do go to groups and appear to be well supported by them. Groups may potentially be low cost and offer additional advantages for some men. Health professionals could do more to identify and promote local groups.

Psychological therapies have been shown to be effective in the treatment of depression. However, evidence is focused on individually delivered therapies, with less evidence for group-based therapies.

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of group-based psychological therapies for depression in primary care and the community.

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group database from inception to July 2010. The Cochrane risk of bias methodology was applied.

Twenty-three studies were included. The majority showed considerable risk of bias. Analysis of group cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) v. usual care alone (14 studies) showed a significant effect in favour of group CBT immediately post-treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.55 (95% CI −0.78 to −0.32)). There was some evidence of benefit being maintained at short-term (SMD =–0.47 (95% CI −1.06 to 0.12)) and medium- to long-term follow-up (SMD =–0.47 (95% CI – 0.87 to −0.08)). Studies of group CBT v. individually delivered CBT therapy (7 studies) showed a moderate treatment effect in favour of individually delivered CBT immediately post-treatment (SMD = 0.38 (95% CI 0.09–0.66)) but no evidence of difference at short- or medium- to long-term follow-up. Four studies described comparisons for three other types of group psychological therapies.

Group CBT confers benefit for individuals who are clinically depressed over that of usual care alone. Individually delivered CBT is more effective than group CBT immediately following treatment but after 3 months there is no evidence of difference. The quality of evidence is poor. Evidence about group psychological therapies not based on CBT is particularly limited.

The aim of this study was to prioritize hospital admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs) and interventions for future research and implementation.

Initiatives aimed at reducing hospital admission need to be targeted at those patients who could avoid admission to hospital, either by prevention, earlier detection and treatment, or by the provision of alternative types of care. Admissions for ACSCs should ideally be prevented by care provided outside hospital.

The study used a modified Delphi method to elicit the views of an expert panel. The Delphi process comprised two rounds and used a Web-based questionnaire. Participants were purposively sampled and comprised primary and community care clinicians, emergency clinicians and commissioning managers. Quantitative data were analysed to produce descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analysed using content analysis.

A total of 36 participants responded to both rounds of the Delphi survey. The condition given top priority was dementia, not currently a widely recognized ACSC or a national priority. The proportion of admissions that could be avoided by provision of care outside hospital was the most important factor in deciding which conditions to prioritize. Access to rapid response nursing and social care at home, intermediate care beds and mental health crisis teams were identified as key interventions to reduce admissions. Analysis of qualitative data showed several themes underlying clinical decisions to admit potentially avoidable admissions.

In conclusion, the conditions selected by the panel for prioritization showed some concordance with the National Health Services’ priorities in this area; but the condition given top priority by the panel – dementia – is not currently a national priority. The panel showed a high degree of consensus around interventions that might lower the rate of avoidable admissions. The highest rated interventions involve the direct delivery of rapid access care in the community.

To compare patterns of population service use and preference in areas with and without one-stop shop services.

A number of strategy documents have recommended adopting a more integrated approach to sexual health service provision. One proposed model of integration is one-stop shops, where services for contraception and sexually transmitted infections are provided under the same roof. Currently, the potential impact of one-stop shop services on patient service use and preference is unclear, particularly at a population level.

Three different models of one-stop shop were studied: a dedicated young persons’ service, a specialist mainstream service, and an enhanced general practice. In each model, the one-stop shop site was matched to two control sites with traditional service provision. Random samples of male and female patients were selected from general practices close to either the one-stop shop or control sites. These patients received a postal survey asking about their use or preference for services for six sexual health needs. One-stop shop and control samples were compared using multivariate logistic regression.

Of the 14 387 patients surveyed, 3101 (21.6%) responded. In the young persons’ model, few significant differences were found in service use or preference between those living in one-stop shop and control site areas. In the specialist services model, women in the one-stop shop area were significantly more likely to cite specialist services for emergency contraception and abortion advice, when compared to those served by non-integrated control services. In the general practice model, respondents in the one-stop shop area were significantly more likely to cite general practice for all six sexual health needs. Overall, general practice was the preferred service provider cited for all sexual health needs, except condoms and pregnancy tests. These findings are discussed in terms of their implications for the provision of integrated sexual health services. In addition, key methodological issues and future research possibilities are identified.