Efficacy of a cognitive and behavioural psychotherapy applied by primary care psychologists in patients with mixed anxiety-depressive disorder: a research protocol

Background: In contrast with the recommendations of clinical practice guidelines, the most common treatment for anxiety and depressive disorders in primary care is pharmacological. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of a cognitive-behavioural psychological intervention, delivered by primary care psychologists in patients with mixed anxiety-depressive disorder compared to usual care. Methods/Design: This is an open-label, multicentre, randomized, and controlled study with two parallel groups. A random sample of 246 patients will be recruited with mild-to-moderate mixed anxiety-depressive disorder, from the target population on the lists of 41 primary care doctors. Patients will be randomly assigned to the intervention group, who will receive standardised cognitive-behavioural therapy delivered by psychologists together with usual care, or to a control group, who will receive usual care alone. The cognitive-behavioural therapy intervention is composed of eight individual 60-minute face-to face sessions conducted in eight consecutive weeks. A follow-up session will be conducted over the telephone, for reinforcement or referral as appropriate, 6 months after the intervention, as required. The primary outcome variable will be the change in scores on the Short Form-36 General Health Survey. We will also measure the change in the frequency and intensity of anxiety symptoms (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory) and depression (Beck Depression Inventory) at baseline, and 3, 6 and 12 months later. Additionally, we will collect information on the use of drugs and health care services. Discussion: The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of a primary care-based cognitive-behavioural psychological intervention in patients with mixed anxiety-depressive disorder. The international scientific evidence has demonstrated the need for psychologists in primary care. However, given the differences between health policies and health services, it is important to test the effect of these psychological interventions in our geographical setting.

The impact of economic crises on social inequalities in health: what do we know so far?

Since 2008, Western countries are going through a deep economic crisis whose health impacts seem to be fundamentally counter-cyclical: when economic conditions worsen, so does health, and mortality tends to rise. While a growing number of studies have presented evidence on the effect of crises on the average population health, a largely neglected aspect of research is the impact of crises and the related political responses on social inequalities in health, even if the negative consequences of the crises are primarily borne by the most disadvantaged populations. This commentary will reflect on the results of the studies that have analyzed the effect of economic crises on social inequalities in health up to 2013. With some exceptions, the studies show an increase in health inequalities during crises, especially during the Southeast Asian and Japanese crises and the Soviet Union crisis, although it is not always evident for both sexes or all health or socioeconomic variables. In the Nordic countries during the nineties, a clear worsening of health equity did not occur. Results about the impacts of the current economic recession on health equity are still inconsistent. Some of the factors that could explain this variability in results are the role of welfare state policies, the diversity of time periods used in the analyses, the heterogeneity of socioeconomic and health variables considered, the changes in the socioeconomic profile of the groups under comparison in times of crises, and the type of measures used to analyze the magnitude of social inequalities in health. Social epidemiology should further collaborate with other disciplines to help produce more accurate and useful evidence about the relationship between crises and health equity.