Quality of Treatment and Disability Compensation in Depression: Comparison of 2 Nationally Representative Samples With a 10-Year Interval in Finland
J Clin Psychiatry 2007;68(12):1886-1893
© Copyright 2016 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.
Purchase This PDF for $40.00
If you are not a paid subscriber, you may purchase the PDF.
(You'll need the free Adobe Acrobat Reader.)
Receive immediate full-text access to JCP. You can subscribe to JCP online-only ($86) or print + online ($156 individual).
With your subscription, receive a free PDF collection of the NCDEU Festschrift articles. Hurry! This offer ends December 31, 2011.
If you are a paid subscriber to JCP and do not yet have a username and password, activate your subscription now.
As a paid subscriber who has activated your subscription, you have access to the HTML and PDF versions of this item.
Click here to login.
Did you forget your password?
Still can't log in? Contact the Circulation Department at 1-800-489-1001 x4 or send email
Objective: Depressive disorders cause substantial work impairment that can lead to disability compensation. The authors compared treatment received for depression preceding disability pension between 2 nationally representative samples with a 10-year interval.
Method: The medical statements for 2 random samples drawn from the Finnish national disability pension registers, representing populations granted a disability pension for DSM-III-R major depression during a 12-month period from October 1993 through September 1994 (N = 277) and for ICD-10 depressive disorders (F32-F33) from October 2003 through September 2004 (N = 265) were examined. The proportions of persons receiving weekly psychotherapy, antidepressants, adequate antidepressant dosage, sequential antidepressant trials, lithium augmentation, and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) were compared.
Results: No significant differences emerged between the 2 samples, except for the adequacy of antidepressant dosage. Few subjects in either of the samples (8.7% for 1993-1994 vs. 10.6% for 2003-2004, p = .45) had received weekly psychotherapy. Most had received antidepressants (87.4% vs. 85.6%, p = .55) with increasingly adequate dosage (75.6% vs. 85.0%, p = .02), but only a minority had received sequential antidepressant trials (39.5% vs. 44.5%, p = .24). Lithium augmentation and ECT were rare (1.1% vs. 1.5%, p = .66 and 4.0% vs. 1.5%, p = .08, respectively). Even in 2003-2004, over half of the subjects were granted a disability pension without sequential antidepressant trials.
Conclusion: This nationally representative study indicates that, despite an increased antidepressant use and improved practice guidelines for depression, a considerable proportion of the people granted long-term compensation for depression seem to be suboptimally treated. Given the enormous costs of the disability, attention to the quality of treatment provided for depression is warranted before long-term disability compensations are granted.