Literature Collection

ObjectiveTo evaluate the practice of using reported suicidal ideations (SI) as an important predictor of suicide and as a major indicator to decide the eligibility and priority of access to mental health services.FindingsExamples on the widespread use of SI in triage, screening, and management protocols of mental health presentations, both in emergency and community settings, are presented. Such widespread use comes in contrast to the evidence clearly indicating the limited utility of SI as a suicide predictor. SI limitations are expected when put in the larger context of the generalized failure of suicide prediction tools. The potential detrimental effects of an exaggerated SI status on several aspects of the clinical encounter are discussed. Finally, potential systemic downsides in humanitarian and resource-limited settings are hypothesized, such as hindering mental health integration into primary care, as well as over-reporting of SI by beneficiaries seeking aid and vulnerability status.ConclusionsSI still holds a "canonical" status as a risk indicator and triage guide. This exaggerated status, in addition to lacking evidence, can also lead to potential downsides, especially in overloaded health systems.

BACKGROUND: Depression in older adults is mainly treated in general practice but is often constrained by limited resources in primary healthcare services and suboptimal access to assistance from specialized care. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a structured collaborative model between GPs and geriatric psychiatrists compared to standard follow-up for individuals aged ≥ 65 with depression. METHODS: Patients with moderate depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9] scores of 10-19) were invited to participate in a cluster-randomized controlled trial evaluating a structured collaborative intervention model involving GPs and geriatric psychiatrists. The core component of the intervention consisted of two consecutive joint consultations with the GP, patient, and geriatric psychiatrist, supplemented by individual GP-patient consultations. PHQ-9 assessments were conducted at baseline and at 6, 12, and 18 months. The primary outcome was a ≥ 50% reduction in PHQ-9 scores. RESULTS: 35 general practitioners initially agreed to participate, yet only 19 managed to recruit one or more depressed patients. Consequently, a total of 34 patients were enrolled in the study, with 30 providing survey responses during the follow-up period for subsequent analysis. Binary analysis (≥ 50% symptom reduction) showed a greater likelihood of improvement in the intervention group compared to the control, though this difference did not reach statistical significance. Notably, both groups showed significant mean PHQ-9 score reductions (3.4 and 4.0, respectively) at 18 months, but differences in mean PHQ-9 scores between the groups across all time points were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: This study did not yield significant results for the collaborative model implemented. Major challenges in the recruitment process likely contributed to the low participation rate, which may explain the absence of positive findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered the 15.09.2019 in ClinicalTrials.gov with ID: NCT04078282.