4.5 Review

What is the role of consultation-liaison psychiatry in the management of depression in primary care? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

GENERAL HOSPITAL PSYCHIATRY
Volume 32, Issue 3, Pages 246-254

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2010.02.003

Keywords

Depression; Meta-analysis; Consultation liaison; Primary care

Categories

Funding

  1. Camden Primary Care Trust
  2. Islington Primary Care Trust
  3. Department of Health
  4. National Institute of Health Research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of consultation-liaison services, involving mental health professionals working to advise and support primary care professionals in the management of depression. Methods: Studies of consultation-liaison for depression in primary care were identified from a systematic search of electronic databases, augmented by identification of papers from reference lists, published reviews and from hand searching. Data on study quality, intervention characteristics and outcomes were extracted by two reviewers, and outcome data were meta-analyzed. Results: Five studies met the criteria. There was no significant effect of consultation-liaison on antidepressant use (risk ratio 1.23, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.66) or depression outcomes in the short- (standardized mean difference -0.04, 95% CI -0.21 10 0.14) or long-term (standardized mean difference 0.06, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.26). Conclusions: Evidence concerning consultation liaison for depression in primary care remains limited, but the existing studies do not suggest it is more effective than usual care. Further research is required to explore the mechanisms by which consultation liaison might be made more effective, including the potential role of consultation liaison in combination with other models of care, and in other patient populations. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available