Clinical Rehabilitation

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

SAGETRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Knottnerus, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by Turner-Stokes, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Knottnerus, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by Turner-Stokes, L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 21, No. 9, 805-811 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0269215507079129

Diagnosis and treatment of depression following acquired brain injury: a comparison of practice in the UK and the Netherlands

Anne Margreet Knottnerus

Rehabilitation Centre De Trappenberg Huizen, The Netherlands

Tabitha Turner-Stokes

Royal Free and University College Medical School, London, UK

F.B. van de Weg

Rehabilitation Centre Amsterdam

L. Heijnen

Rehabilitation Centre De Trappenberg Huizen

G.J. Lankhorst

Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, VU Medical Center, The Netherlands

Lynne Turner-Stokes

Northwick Park Hospital, Harrow and Kings College, London, UK, Lynne.turner-stokes{at}dial.pipex.com

Objective: To describe and compare current practice in diagnosis and treatment of depression following acquired brain injury in two countries (UK and the Netherlands) which have different sets of guidelines.

Setting and design: A cross-sectional survey of reported practice among rehabilitation physician members of the British and Dutch specialist societies.

Methods: A 12-item postal questionnaire was sent to 496 rehabilitation physicians with two reminders: N = 353 (71%) responded, 146 of whom did not manage people with acquired brain injury, leaving 207 questionnaires for analysis (Netherlands N = 121, UK N = 86). Descriptive summary statistics were compiled. Categorical and dichotomous data were compared between the groups using chi-squared tests.

Results: Sixty-seven (78%) of British respondents served a predominantly younger adult (65 years) population, compared with only 27 (22%) of the Dutch, who mainly treated patients of all ages. In line with their respective guidelines, more British respondents reported that they screened all acquired brain injury patients for depression (68/86 (79%) British versus 71/121 (59%) Dutch, P < 0.01), and used formal measures (37/68 (54%) versus 14/69 (20%), P < 0.001). They also took a more active role in treatment of depression: only 1 (1%) never used antidepressants, compared with 22 (18%) of Dutch respondents (P < 0.001). On the other hand, where antidepressants were prescribed, the Dutch respondents were more likely than the British to follow-up their patients (93/98 (95%) versus 67/84 (80%), P < 0.01).

Conclusions: The survey demonstrates a broadly similar approach, but highlights some significant variance in practice between the two countries which may stem from differences in population and service provision as well as their respective guidelines.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?