↓ Skip to main content

A personalized intervention to prevent depression in primary care: cost-effectiveness study nested into a clustered randomized trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
twitter
22 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A personalized intervention to prevent depression in primary care: cost-effectiveness study nested into a clustered randomized trial
Published in
BMC Medicine, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12916-018-1005-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Fernández, Juan M. Mendive, Sonia Conejo-Cerón, Patricia Moreno-Peral, Michael King, Irwin Nazareth, Carlos Martín-Pérez, Carmen Fernández-Alonso, Antonina Rodríguez-Bayón, Jose Maria Aiarzaguena, Carmen Montón-Franco, Antoni Serrano-Blanco, Inmaculada Ibañez-Casas, Emiliano Rodríguez-Sánchez, Luis Salvador-Carulla, Paola Bully Garay, María Isabel Ballesta-Rodríguez, Pilar LaFuente, María del Mar Muñoz-García, Pilar Mínguez-Gonzalo, Luz Araujo, Diego Palao, María Cruz Gómez, Fernando Zubiaga, Desirée Navas-Campaña, Jose Manuel Aranda-Regules, Alberto Rodriguez-Morejón, Juan de Dios Luna, Juan Ángel Bellón

Abstract

Depression is viewed as a major and increasing public health issue, as it causes high distress in the people experiencing it and considerable financial costs to society. Efforts are being made to reduce this burden by preventing depression. A critical component of this strategy is the ability to assess the individual level and profile of risk for the development of major depression. This paper presents the cost-effectiveness of a personalized intervention based on the risk of developing depression carried out in primary care, compared with usual care. Cost-effectiveness analyses are nested within a multicentre, clustered, randomized controlled trial of a personalized intervention to prevent depression. The study was carried out in 70 primary care centres from seven cities in Spain. Two general practitioners (GPs) were randomly sampled from those prepared to participate in each centre (i.e. 140 GPs), and 3326 participants consented and were eligible to participate. The intervention included the GP communicating to the patient his/her individual risk for depression and personal risk factors and the construction by both GPs and patients of a psychosocial programme tailored to prevent depression. In addition, GPs carried out measures to activate and empower the patients, who also received a leaflet about preventing depression. GPs were trained in a 10- to 15-h workshop. Costs were measured from a societal and National Health care perspective. Qualityadjustedlife years were assessed using the EuroQOL five dimensions questionnaire. The time horizon was 18 months. With a willingness-to-pay threshold of €10,000 (£8568) the probability of cost-effectiveness oscillated from 83% (societal perspective) to 89% (health perspective). If the threshold was increased to €30,000 (£25,704), the probability of being considered cost-effective was 94% (societal perspective) and 96%, respectively (health perspective). The sensitivity analysis confirmed these results. Compared with usual care, an intervention based on personal predictors of risk of depression implemented by GPs is a cost-effective strategy to prevent depression. This type of personalized intervention in primary care should be further developed and evaluated. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01151982. Registered on June 29, 2010.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 128 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 13%
Student > Bachelor 16 13%
Researcher 15 12%
Student > Master 9 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 31 24%
Unknown 33 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 30 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 9%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 2%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 38 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 56. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 October 2022.
All research outputs
#726,390
of 24,608,500 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#505
of 3,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,936
of 335,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#9
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,608,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,804 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 335,130 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.