Consequences of mental distress recognition in general practice in Italy: A follow-up study

Many reports have been recently published on the accuracy of mental distress detection by general practitioners. Recognition of 'caseness', irrespective of its accuracy, nevertheless determines the implementation of therapeutic interventions. This paper reports the results of a naturalistic study describing the consequences for the patients of being identified as 'cases' in the general practice (in terms of referral strategies at recruitment and outcome 3 months and 1 year later), in the context of care provision generated by the 1978 Italian psychiatric reform. Sixty-eight GPs recruited 878 'cases' according to implicit criteria. Overall 20% of the patients were referred the psychiatric setting; only half of these for psychiatric care. After 3 months and 1 year from recruitment respectively 12% and 23% of the subjects were no longer 'cases'. The factors contributing to predict the outcome at three months were age, symptom duration, comorbidity, presence of social context risk factors and prior psychiatric history (or presence of 'major' symptoms); after one year the predictors of caseness were caseness status at 3 months, and clinical severity, symptom duration and presence of somatization at recruitment. GPs remain the main care providers in the short- and long-term. The results of the study indicate the need for a reappraisal of the emphasis to be put on caseness recognition and on the development of standardized instruments for the identification of mental distress. Non-clinical variables concurring in the definition of caseness in general practice, and the factors influencing physicians' decision-making in the implementation of alternative intervention strategies should be further clarified by ad hoc studies.