Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:42:39.534Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Economics of Depression in Primary Care: Department of Health Initiatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2018

Keith Lloyd  and
Rachel Jenkins
Keith Lloyd*
Affiliation:
Department of Health, Wellington House
Rachel Jenkins
Affiliation:
Department of Health, Wellington House
*
Dr K. Lloyd, Department of Health, Wellington House, 133–155 Waterloo Road, London SE1 8UG
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background. Most mental illness is treated in primary and not secondary care settings, with depression and anxiety the commonest conditions encountered.

Method. The paper describes on-going Department of Health initiatives to optimise the primary care of common mental illnesses such as depression.

Discussion. Primary care attenders with depression are often higher consumers of general health care than non-depressed attenders. Further data will become available soon from these ongoing studies to inform the debate on the optimal use of available resources in primary care. There is a particular need to evaluate non-pharmacological interventions in primary care.

Type
III. Economic Aspects of Programmes Dealing with Depressive Disorders
Information
The British Journal of Psychiatry , Volume 166 , Issue S27: Economics of Anxiety and Depression , April 1995 , pp. 60 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 The Royal College of Psychiatrists 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Psychiatric Association (1987) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd edn, revised) (DSM–III–R). Washington, DC: APA.Google Scholar
Armstrong, E. (1992) Facilitators in primary care. International Review of Psychiatry, 4, 339–342.Google Scholar
Bashir, K., Zadler, A., Pearson, J., et al (personal communication) The costs of psychiatric morbidity in general practice.Google Scholar
Croft-Jeffreys, C. & Wilkinson, G. (1989) Estimated costs of neurotic disorder in UK General Practice, 1985. Psychological Medicine, 9, 337–353.Google Scholar
Department of Health (1992) The Health of the Nation: A Strategy for Health in England. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Department of Health (1993a) On the State of the Public Health, 1992, pp. 120–124. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Department of Health (1993b) The Health of the Nation Key Area Handbook Mental Illness, pp. 11–17. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, L. (1992) Treating depression and anxiety in primary care. Closing the gap between knowledge and practice. New England Journal of Medicine, 326, 1080–1084.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freemantle, N., Long, A., Mason, J., et al (1993) The treatment of depression in primary care. Effective Health Care, 5, 2–12.Google Scholar
Goldberg, D. & Huxley, P. (1992) Common Mental Disorders. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jenkins, R. (1992) Developments in the primary care of mental illness – a forward look. International Review of Psychiatry, 4, 237–242.Google Scholar
Lloyd, K. (1993) The epidemiology of neuroses: neurotic disorders in primary care. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 6, 179–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paykel, E. S. & Priest, R. G. (1992) Recognition and management of depression and general practice: consensus statement. British Medical Journal, 305, 1198–1202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shepherd, M., Cooper, B., Brown, A. C., et al (1966) Psychiatric Illness in General Practice. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, G., Allen, P., Marshall, E., et al (1993) The role of the practice nurse in the management of depression in general practice: treatment adherence to antidepressant medication. Psychological Medicine, 23, 229–237.Google Scholar
Wright, A. F. (1993) Depression Recognition and Management in General Practice. London: Royal College of General Practitioners.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.