A 51-item questionnaire based on six validated scales was used to rate the importance of several depression outcome dimensions. Physicians' attitudes about depression were also assessed using the Depression Attitude Scale. Overall, 369 Belgian physicians (264 general practitioners [GPs]; 105 psychiatrists) participated in the DEsCRIBE survey.

Results

GPs and psychiatrists strongly agreed that functioning and depressive symptomatology were most important in defining cure; anxious and somatic symptomatology was least important. GPs and psychiatrists differed in their attitudes about depression (p < 0.001). Logistic regression revealed that the attitudes of GPs - but not psychiatrists - were significantly associated with their rates of antidepressant prescription (p < 0.001) and that certain attitudes predicted which outcome dimensions were seen as important in defining cure.

Conclusions

Belgian GPs and psychiatrists strongly agreed on which criteria were important in defining cure from depression but differed in their attitudes about depression. The outcome dimensions that were considered important in defining cure were influenced by physicians' attitudes - this was more pronounced in GPs than in psychiatrists.'/>

Skip to main content

Advertisement

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Do general practitioners and psychiatrists agree about defining cure from depression? The DEsCRIBE™ survey

  • Koen Demyttenaere1Email author,
  • Marc Ansseau2,
  • Eric Constant3,
  • Adelin Albert4,
  • Geert Van Gassen5 and
  • Kees van Heeringen6
BMC Psychiatry201111:169

DOI: 10.1186/1471-244X-11-169

Received: 26 June 2011

Accepted: 14 October 2011

Published: 14 October 2011

Back to article

Open Peer Review reports

Pre-publication versions of this article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting info@biomedcentral.com.

Original Submission
26 Jun 2011 Submitted Original manuscript
15 Jul 2011 Reviewed Reviewer Report - George Papakostas
21 Jul 2011 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Roland Mergl
1 Aug 2011 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Daniela Krause
28 Sep 2011 Author responded Author comments - koen demyttenaere
Resubmission - Version 2
28 Sep 2011 Submitted Manuscript version 2
Publishing
14 Oct 2011 Editorially accepted
14 Oct 2011 Article published 10.1186/1471-244X-11-169

How does Open Peer Review work?

Open peer review is a system where authors know who the reviewers are, and the reviewers know who the authors are. If the manuscript is accepted, the named reviewer reports are published alongside the article. Pre-publication versions of the article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting info@biomedcentral.com. All previous versions of the manuscript and all author responses to the reviewers are also available.

You can find further information about the peer review system here.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
University Psychiatric Centre, Catholic University of Leuven
(2)
Department of Psychiatry and Medical Psychology, University and CHU of Liège
(3)
Department of Psychiatry, Catholic University of Louvain, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc
(4)
Department of Medical Informatics and Biostatistics, University of Liège
(5)
Medical Department, Lundbeck Belgium
(6)
University Department of Psychiatry and Medical Psychology, Unit for Suicide Research, University of Ghent Hospital

Advertisement