Interventions promoting recovery from depression for patients transitioning from outpatient mental health services to primary care: Protocol for a scoping review

Abstract

Introduction

Patients with severe Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) have an increasing risk of new psychiatric hospitalizations following each new episode of depression highlighting the recurrent nature of the disorder. Furthermore, patients are not fully recovered at the end of their treatment in outpatient mental health services, and residual symptoms of depression might explain why patients with MDD have a high risk of relapse. However, evidence of methods to promote recovery after discharge from outpatient mental health services is lacking. The proposed scoping review aims to systematically scope, map and identify the evidence and knowledge gaps on interventions that aims to promote recovery from MDD for patients transitioning from outpatient mental health services to primary care.

Materials and methods

The proposed scoping review will follow the latest methodological guidance by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) in tandem with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis—extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. The review is ongoing. Four electronic databases (Medline via PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Sociological Abstracts) were systematically searched from 20 January 2022 till 29 March 2022 using keywords and text words. The review team consists of three independent screeners. Two screeners have completed the initial title and abstract screening for all studies retrieved by the search strategy. Currently, we are in the full text screening phase. Reference lists of included studies will be screened, and data will be independently extracted by the review team. Results will be analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively.

Discussion

The chosen methodology is based on the use of publicly available information and does not require ethical approval. Results will be published in an international peer reviewed scientific journal, at national and international conferences and shared with relevant authorities.

Registration

A pre-print has been registered at the medRxiv preprint server for health sciences (doi.org/10.1101/2022.10.06.22280499).

Introduction

Disease burden of Major Depressive Disorder and treatment across sectors

Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is one of the most prevalent mental disorders worldwide with a lifetime risk of 20% for adults on a global level [1–3]. Approximately 5% of the general population experiences a depressive episode within a 12-month period [1–3]. Current predictions by the World Health Organization indicate that by 2030 depression will be the leading cause of disease burden globally [4]. MDD negatively impacts quality of life, reduces psychosocial, social, and occupational functioning, and markedly increases morbidity and mortality [5–7].

A large body of evidence from e.g., epidemiological surveys has documented a strong interconnection and increased comorbidity of MDD with other mental disorders, most notably with anxiety disorders and substance use disorders [5, 8–11]. MDD has furthermore been associated with comorbid physical diseases, e.g., diabetes and heart diseases [5, 6, 12–15], and social difficulties [10, 16, 17], e.g., poor work participation, drift to a lower social class, and poorer education.

Thus, MDD is a major burden for the individual patient and public health throughout the world [1, 2, 18, 19], and on a societal level, MDD leads to significant direct costs for treatment, care, and rehabilitation and indirect costs due to disease-related work disability and mortality [5, 6, 12–15].

A diagnosis of MDD is reached when patients experience five or more out of nine symptoms during the same 2-week period and at least one of these symptoms should be either depressed mood or loss of interest and pleasure [20]. In addition, patients with MDD experience a variety of associated emotional, cognitive, and behavioral symptoms [10, 21, 22].

Most patients with MDD are diagnosed and treated in primary care by general practitioners, but research has shown that the ability to detect, diagnose, and treat patients with MDD is often insufficient [23–25]. Furthermore, there is sparse evidence to conclude which type of treatment approach is most effective in preventing relapse or recurrence of MDD [26, 27]. A Cochrane review concluded that patients taking antidepressant medication were less likely to relapse or to experience a recurrent episode compared to patients not taking antidepressant medication (13.9% versus 33.8%) [27]. There are, however, methodological problems in assessing the prophylactic effect of antidepressants [28]. There is also some evidence that non-pharmacological treatment options can induce a reduction in depression symptoms and further remission, i.e., rumination-group cognitive-behavioral therapy, light, exercise, and sleep regulation therapy [29, 30].

MDD is often reoccurring and in some cases it becomes chronic. After treatment of the first episode of severe MDD, more than 50% of all inpatients will relapse [15, 31–36]. These residual symptoms of MDD and incomplete recovery are thus considered a significant contributor to the high risk of relapse for patients with MDD [37]. Therefore, MDD requires long-term and adequate multimodal treatment to induce recovery and prevent/reduce the risk of further episodes. Specialized mental health services typically manage treatment of severe recurrent depression and difficult to treat depression or pressing suicidal ideation [38–40]. However, most mental health services only offer treatment for shorter periods, and research concludes that too early discharge can remove critical support and treatment from vulnerable patients that are not fully recovered at the end of their treatment in outpatient mental health services [36, 41, 42]. In addition, research has shown that patients may not have full confidence in the general practitioners’ ability to decide continuation/discontinuation of antidepressants due to a perceived lack of knowledge and time in general practice [38, 43]. As described, some patients relapse into the treatment gaps between outpatient mental health services and often insufficient treatment in primary care. Patients with MDD require ongoing maintenance treatments over the long term to facilitate continued recovery.

Recovering from Major Depressive Disorder

The concept of recovery was first used in the 1960s, primarily aimed to restore human rights as part of user movements responding to the perceived dominant, and stigmatizing notion of mental illness as chronic with little possibility for improvement [44]. Since then, recovery has become an increasingly important aspect of mental healthcare [45, 46]. The main notions of recovery in mental health literature are the concepts of clinical—and personal recovery.

Clinical recovery refers to a process of individual recovery from mental illness by remission from symptoms and attainment of functional improvement [47–49]. Personal recovery refers to a process in which the individual recovers from the social consequences of the mental illness, thus regaining a meaningful life and participating in the community by overcoming the challenges of mental illness with or without symptoms. Personal recovery is commonly conceptualized via the ‘CHIME’ Framework. It consists of five interrelated processes: Connectedness with other people and the community; Hope and optimism about the future; overcoming stigma and redefining a positive sense of Identity; Meaning in life as defined by rebuilding a meaningful life with social goals; Empowerment, which includes taking personal responsibility and control over one’s life [50–57]. The two concepts of recovery have led to some polarization in the understanding of what recovery entails [58]. Recently, it has been argued that the two concepts should be considered complementary rather than contrasting, especially to prevent patients are left in limbo in the, sometimes, polarized discussion between researchers and clinicians [47]. Professionals working in psychiatry tend to focus on clinical recovery [47–49, 58], while general practitioners tend to focus more on personal recovery, which aligns well with a generalist and person-centered rather than a disease-centered approach to care [43, 52, 58]. Yet, patients want both clinical and personal recovery [58]. Therefore, in this review, we focus on both clinical- and personal recovery, collectively referred to as “recovery”.

Existing evidence on recovery from Major Depressive Disorder for patients transitioning from outpatient mental health services to primary care

To our knowledge, there are no published scoping reviews that summarize the evidence for interventions aiming to promote continued recovery from MDD for patients transitioning from outpatient mental health services to primary care. Most studies investigating recovery interventions and/or relapse prevention from MDD have been undertaken in primary care [38, 59, 60]. Two reviews have a specific focus on developing recovery interventions, e.g., scoping the evidence for internet-based recovery-oriented interventions [61], or developing a proposed logic model, i.e., a visual representation of what works for whom, why, and under which circumstances, for how recovery-oriented interventions could contribute to recovery [62]. However, these reviews were not specific to our target group of interest and did not focus on clinical recovery or patients transitioning from outpatient mental health services to primary care [61, 62]. Currently, the best available evidence in the field is a rapid review from 2021 by Blasi et al. [63] that identified practices for transitioning stable patients from outpatient mental health services to primary care, and a systematic review from 2006 by Gunn et al. [64] that assessed the effects of chronic illness management approaches for patients with depression in primary care. The rapid review by Blasi et al. [63] included 11 articles representing six categories of transition practices, with patient engagement as the most commonly described transition practice, followed by shared treatment planning, assessment of recovery and stability, care coordination, follow-up and support, and medication management. However, the review did not conclude about best practices or the importance of specific transition processes or strategies, including interventions that promote recovery for patients transitioning. In addition, the authors may have missed some relevant articles due to the rapid review timeline for literature searching and study selection [63]. The systematic review by Gunn et al. [64] found that system-level interventions in primary care can lead to a modest increase in recovery from depression. Yet, the quality of the evidence was poor and ten of the 11 randomized controlled trials included in the review (91%) were from the United States of America [64]. Thus, the authors concluded that possibly the findings in the reviews were likely not applicable to countries with strong primary care systems. Of note, the scope of the review was not recovery after discharge from mental health services. In addition, neither observational nor qualitative studies were included in review, limiting the review’s ability to provide a comprehensive overview of the field of recovery from MDD [64]. Lastly, much research on recovery from MDD has been conducted since 2006, making an updated review relevant [65, 66]. Nevertheless, it is plausible that shared care models in treatment of MDD between outpatient mental health services and primary care may improve recovery [67]. Therefore, we believe that a scoping review on this field will be valuable to identify knowledge gaps due to its connection with and to inform an ongoing co-design development project that we will describe briefly below.

The scoping review informs a co-design process of a complex intervention

Given the high rates of relapse and residual symptoms for patients with MDD following transitioning from outpatient mental health services to primary care, new strategies to promote continued recovery are required. A promising method is to develop an intervention that promotes continued recovery from MDD for patients transitioning. This scoping review is one part of an ongoing stakeholder co-design project (S1 Appendix) located in the Capital Region of Denmark. In the present review, stakeholders are involved in the design and conduct of the review. Other activities involved in the co-design process include individual interviews, focus groups, and workshops with stakeholders. The overall aim of the co-design project is to develop a complex intervention that promotes recovery from MDD for patients transitioning (S1 Appendix) from outpatient mental health services to primary care. Following the development of the intervention, we plan to test the intervention over a series of feasibility studies [68–70].

Objective

The proposed scoping review aims to systematically scope, map and identify the evidence and knowledge gaps on interventions that aims to promote recovery from MDD for patients transitioning from outpatient mental health services to primary care.

Research questions (RQs):

* RQ1: What characterizes studies conducted in the area in terms of settings, aims and methods?

* RQ2: How do studies define, measure, and report recovery from depression?

* RQ3: What is the content, implementation, and the most important contextual elements of the interventions in the identified studies?

* RQ4: What are the findings of the identified studies as to what promotes recovery from depression and which aspects promote the process?

Hypothesis: We expect to find few studies that aim to promote recovery from MDD for patients transitioning from outpatient mental health services to primary care. In addition, we assume that studies use a diversity of designs and methods to assess the effects of recovery interventions. In recent years, the concept of recovery has become increasingly important in the mental health field. Therefore, we expect to find that definitions of the concept of recovery are very different across studies in the area. Finally, we expect to find different types of interventions that we are able to describe in terms of their content, implementation strategies and contextual factors important for promoting recovery from MDD.

Materials and methods

Scoping reviews are methodologically rigorous in their approach to examining the extent, range, and nature of research activity in a particular field. The methodology is particularly useful for identifying and synthesizing the best available evidence that spans a vast conceptual and methodological range in the health disciplines [71–75], as is the case within this research area.

The first framework for conducting a scoping review was proposed by Arksey and O’Malley [71]. Extensions of this framework were later provided by Levac et al. [72]. These initial attempts have guided many researchers, but a lack of methodological clarity continues to exist. In response to ongoing concerns about the scoping review methodology, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidance for scoping reviews was developed by a working group of methodological experts and first published in 2015 [73], and updated in 2017, 2020 [74, 76] and latest in 2022 [77].

This proposed scoping review will follow the latest methodological guidance by the JBI [77] in tandem with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis—extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist [78] (S2 Appendix).

Patient and public involvement

During protocol development, we used the TRANSFER approach [79] to involve relevant stakeholders in discussions about the scoping reviews’ aims and methods, aiming to promote relevance and transferability of the reviews’ findings. We included a diverse set of stakeholders over a series of meetings to gain perspectives from researchers from a) general practice, b) mental health services, and c) social medicine. We also conducted interviews with patients with MDD and a focus group with job consultants from the Municipality of Copenhagen to include their perceptions.

Protocol and registration

This scoping review protocol is novel, i.e., not based on updates from previous review(s). A pre-print has been registered at the medRxiv preprint server for health sciences (doi.org/10.1101/2022.10.06.22280499). In case the conduct outlined in this protocol changes substantially during the review process, we will update the protocol in the medRxiv preprint server accordingly and report deviations from the protocol in the final publication(s).

Eligibility criteria

The following eligibility criteria (Table 1) guide the decision to in- or exclude studies identified for review. These are structured according to the PICOS acronym (population, intervention, comparator, outcome, and setting).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Information sources and search

The literature search was developed in collaboration with an information specialist with feedback from the stakeholders that were included via the TRANSFER [79] approach in discussions regarding the eligibility criteria (PICOS elements) for the review outlined above. We have searched the electronic databases of Medline via PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Sociological Abstracts. The search strategy included both text words and Medical Subject Headings (MeSh)/Thesaurus headings terms. Before performing the search strategy, we searched for ongoing or completed scoping or systematic reviews in the area on Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and the PROSPERO register to make sure there were not already relevant reviews in the area.

The search strategy for PubMed is available in S3 Appendix. All databases were searched from 20 January 2022 to 29 March 2022.

Reference lists of included studies will be examined, i.e., backward citation tracing, to identify relevant studies potentially missed by the search strategy. Vice versa, we will do forward citation tracing of all included studies via Web of Science. The database searches will be re-run just before the final analysis is conducted to include the most recent evidence.

Selection of sources of evidence

Results from the literature were exported from databases to the Covidence (https://www.covidence.org/) reference management software system. Duplication of database search results was removed used using EndNote 20 reference management software. Before the start of the review, all screeners were trained to use the Covidence system and received education about the content area, i.e., depression and recovery.

Relevant studies were screened through a two-step process for examining titles and abstracts and then full texts. The review team consists of three unblinded screeners. Two independent screeners completed the initial title and abstract screening for all studies retrieved by the search strategy. A third screener reviewed conflicts and resolved disagreements through discussion with the two other screeners. Over two months, these unblinded screeners (unable to see each other votes in Covidence until they have cast their own, and vice versa, and they will not be blinded to the authors and journals) have screened 4605 titles and abstracts independently. Three screeners reviewed at least 1600 titles and abstracts each. Currently, we are in step two, the full-text screening. Here, two independent screeners will review the full text of potentially eligible articles. Disagreements between screeners during full-text screening will be resolved by discussion or, if needed, by consulting a third screener. If there is more than one article from the same study, the most updated data will be extracted. If information is missing or clarification of data is required, authors will be contacted via e-mail.

Overall reasons for the inclusion/exclusion of studies will be documented and reported in a PRISMA flowchart [80] in the final article reporting the findings from the review process.

Data charting process

The preliminary charting table (Table 2) guides data extraction (charting). Design of the table was guided by/-inspired by the newest JBI guideline [77] and further developed for this scoping review in line with the review’s objectives and research questions in collaboration with stakeholders included via the TRANSFER approach [79]. Two review authors will independently extract data from included studies into a Microsoft Excel sheet organized in columns corresponding to the items in the table. The review authors will agree on revisions to the charting table as needed in an iterative process [81]. To ensure clarity and consistency between the screeners’ data extraction, and before initiating the full-text article selection process, we will pilot test the data extraction process on a subset of potentially eligible full-text articles. Review authors will resolve disagreements by discussion, and a third review author will adjudicate unresolved disagreements.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Data items

We will extract data as shown in Table 2.

Critical appraisal of individual sources of evidence

Since this is a scoping review, we will not conduct a quality appraisal of included studies, which is consistent with the framework proposed by the JBI methodology for scoping reviews [74, 76]. Still, the independent data extraction by two review authors with comparison of the extracted data and discussion of any disagreements should lead to a high reliability of the extracted data, i.e., that the data extracted represents the findings and characteristics of the studies included for review. In addition, the first author (ASA) iteratively compares the extracted data with the publications from the included studies on a case-by-case basis as a second precaution against erroneous data extraction.

Synthesis of results

According to the JBI methodology [74, 76] for scoping reviews, the quantitative results extracted from included studies will be analyzed with descriptive statistics with visual representations of the data where possible, e.g., mapping the extracted data in a diagrammatic, tabular, or descriptive format. Qualitative findings from studies will be analyzed from a thematic perspective and, depending on the results, described regarding for example active ingredients, patient satisfaction, and barriers and facilitators for implementation.

The results will be classified under main conceptual categories, such as: “intervention type”, “duration of intervention”, “facilitators/barriers”, “aims”, “methodology adopted”, “key findings” (evidence established), and “gaps in the research field”. For each category reported, a clear explanation will be provided.

Discussion

This scoping review constitutes the first step of a larger research project aiming to develop a complex intervention to promote recovery from MDD in patients transitioning from outpatient mental health services to primary care. The chosen methodology is based on the use of publicly available information and does not require ethical approval.

Strengths and limitations

To our knowledge, this will be the first scoping review that systematically scope, map, and identify the evidence and knowledge gaps on interventions that promote recovery from MDD for patients transitioning from outpatient mental health services to primary care.

Scoping reviews form a method used to map evidence across a range of study designs in an area, with the aim of informing future research practice, programs, and policy. However, no universal agreement exists on methodological steps, and therefore several guidelines have developed methods for conducting scoping reviews. We will conduct the review in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR in tandem with the Joanna Briggs Institute’s (JBI) framework. Concerning data extraction, we will follow the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide to ensure a systematic extraction of data. Another strength of this scoping review is the involvement of stakeholders guided by the TRANSFER guide [79], which promotes integration of different perspectives on the aim, design, and methods of the scoping review from health professionals representing psychiatry, social medicine and primary care, and both clinicians, researchers and patients are involved. The goal of this process is to promote an evidence synthesis that is relevant to key stakeholders, e.g., facilitating a link between research and real-world clinical practice.

However, the scoping review methodology comes with important limitations like any type of review. Scoping reviews focus on mapping the breath and range of the literature rather than the depth, i.e., the validity of findings. Therefore, we will present an overview of the field rather than an evidence synthesis of the probable effect of various types of recovery-interventions. In addition, scoping reviews focus on describing knowledge gaps in the literature rather than contributing with new knowledge. As is typical for scoping reviews, we do not assess study quality or bias, nor will we provide a systematic assessment of the external validity of the evidence, i.e., a GRADE rating. Instead, we will outline the key characteristics of the best-available evidence in the area and comment of the applicability of the evidence in various settings.

Another limitation concerns the expected heterogeneity of the evidence at hand. We expect to find studies that include different study populations, e.g., some participants are included from general practice and others from outpatient mental health services. If study populations in primary care and outpatient mental health services are too different, it would not be meaningful to compare results from these two different settings. To mitigate these issues, we will only include studies where participants have been treated in mental health services, which theoretically should prevent that we conflate study populations with different degrees of depression. Still, we cannot prevent that study populations will differ concerning their average age, social class, degree of depression, comorbidities etc., and therefore we will try to highlight these differences when synthesizing results from studies in the final review.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. List of abbreviations / concepts.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291559.s001

S2 Appendix. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291559.s002

S3 Appendix. Search strategy.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291559.s003

Acknowledgments

Depression, recovery, transitioning, mental health services, primary care. Data sharing not applicable as no datasets generated and/or analyzed for this study.

Citation: Aggestrup AS, Martiny F, Faurholt-Jepsen M, Hvenegaard M, Christensen R, Davidsen AS, et al. (2023) Interventions promoting recovery from depression for patients transitioning from outpatient mental health services to primary care: Protocol for a scoping review. PLoS ONE 18(9): e0291559. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291559

About the Authors:

Anne Sofie Aggestrup

Roles: Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Visualization, Writing – original draft

E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation: Copenhagen Affective Disorder Research Centre (CADIC), New Interventions in Depression (NID) Group, Mental Health Centre Copenhagen, Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2907-8074

Frederik Martiny

Roles: Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations: The Research Unit for and Section of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, Center for Social Medicine, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark

Maria Faurholt-Jepsen

Roles: Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Copenhagen Affective Disorder Research Centre (CADIC), Mental Health Centre Copenhagen, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark

Morten Hvenegaard

Roles: Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Competence Centre for Rehabilitation and Recovery, Mental Health Centre Ballerup, Ballerup, Denmark

Robin Christensen

Roles: Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Section for Biostatistics and Evidence-Based Research, The Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital & Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense University Hospital, Denmark

Annette Sofie Davidsen

Roles: Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: The Research Unit for and Section of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

Klaus Martiny

Roles: Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Copenhagen Affective Disorder Research Centre (CADIC), New Interventions in Depression (NID) Group, Mental Health Centre Copenhagen, Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

References

1. Kessler R.C., et al., The epidemiology of major depressive disorder: results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R). Jama, 2003. 289(23): p. 3095–105. pmid:12813115

2. Malhi G.S. and Mann J.J., Depression. Lancet, 2018. 392(10161): p. 2299–2312. pmid:30396512

3. Evaluation, I.o.H.M.a. Global Health Data Exchange (GHDx). [cited 2022 09–05]; Available from: http://ghdx.healthdata.org/gbd-results-tool?params=gbd-api-2019-permalink/d780dffbe8a381b25e1416884959e88b.

4. Executive B., Global burden of mental disorders and the need for a comprehensive, coordinated response from health and social workers at the country level: report by the Secretariat. 2012, World Health Organization: Geneva.

5. Šprah L., et al., Psychiatric readmissions and their association with physical comorbidity: a systematic literature review. BMC Psychiatry, 2017. 17(1): p. 2. pmid:28049441

6. Plana-Ripoll O., et al., A comprehensive analysis of mortality-related health metrics associated with mental disorders: a nationwide, register-based cohort study. Lancet, 2019. 394(10211): p. 1827–1835. pmid:31668728

7. Steffen A., et al., Mental and somatic comorbidity of depression: a comprehensive cross-sectional analysis of 202 diagnosis groups using German nationwide ambulatory claims data. BMC Psychiatry, 2020. 20(1): p. 142. pmid:32228541

8. Kessler R.C., Merikangas K.R., and Wang P.S., Prevalence, comorbidity, and service utilization for mood disorders in the United States at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Annu Rev Clin Psychol, 2007. 3: p. 137–58. pmid:17716051

9. Kaufman J. and Charney D., Comorbidity of mood and anxiety disorders. Depress Anxiety, 2000. 12 Suppl 1: p. 69–76. pmid:11098417

10. Laursen T.M., et al., Mortality and life expectancy in persons with severe unipolar depression. J Affect Disord, 2016. 193: p. 203–7. pmid:26773921

11. Bock C., et al., The influence of comorbid personality disorder and neuroticism on treatment outcome in first episode depression. Psychopathology, 2010. 43(3): p. 197–204. pmid:20375542

12. Katon W., Lin E.H., and Kroenke K., The association of depression and anxiety with medical symptom burden in patients with chronic medical illness. Gen Hosp Psychiatry, 2007. 29(2): p. 147–55. pmid:17336664

13. Carney R.M. and Freedland K.E., Depression and coronary heart disease. Nat Rev Cardiol, 2017. 14(3): p. 145–155. pmid:27853162

14. Sartorius N., Depression and diabetes. Dialogues Clin Neurosci, 2018. 20(1): p. 47–52. pmid:29946211

15. Kessler R.C., The costs of depression. Psychiatr Clin North Am, 2012. 35(1): p. 1–14. pmid:22370487

16. Saris I.M.J., et al., Default Mode Network Connectivity and Social Dysfunction in Major Depressive Disorder. Sci Rep, 2020. 10(1): p. 194. pmid:31932627

17. Sarris J., et al., Lifestyle medicine for depression. BMC Psychiatry, 2014. 14: p. 107. pmid:24721040

18. Herrman H., et al., Time for united action on depression: a Lancet-World Psychiatric Association Commission. The Lancet, 2022. 399(10328): p. 957–1022. pmid:35180424

19. Liu Q., et al., Changes in the global burden of depression from 1990 to 2017: Findings from the Global Burden of Disease study. J Psychiatr Res, 2020. 126: p. 134–140. pmid:31439359

20. Sheehan D.V., et al., The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.): the development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. J Clin Psychiatry, 1998. 59 Suppl 20: p. 22–33;quiz 34–57. pmid:9881538

21. England MJ S.L., Depression in Parents, Parenting, and Children: Opportunities to Improve Identification, Treatment, and Prevention. 2009, Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US): National Research Council (US) and Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Depression, Parenting Practices, and the Healthy Development of Children.

22. Organization, W.H., Depression and Other Common Mental Disorders: Global Health Estimates. 2017: Geneva. p. 24.

23. Weihs K. and Wert J.M., A primary care focus on the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder. Am J Med Sci, 2011. 342(4): p. 324–30. pmid:21642822

24. Fleury M.J., et al., General practitioners’ management of mental disorders: a rewarding practice with considerable obstacles. BMC Fam Pract, 2012. 13: p. 19. pmid:22423592

25. Murray R.M., et al., Essential psychiatry. 2008.

26. Cox G.R., et al., Interventions for preventing relapse and recurrence of a depressive disorder in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2012. 11(11): p. Cd007504. pmid:23152246

27. Machmutow K., et al., Comparative effectiveness of continuation and maintenance treatments for persistent depressive disorder in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2019. 5(5): p. Cd012855. pmid:31106850

28. Licht R.W., Is it possible to evaluate true prophylactic efficacy of antidepressants in severely ill patients with recurrent depression? Lessons from a placebo-controlled trial. The fifth trial of the Danish University Antidepressant Group (DUAG-5). J Affect Disord, 2013. 148(2–3): p. 286–90. pmid:23399479

29. Hvenegaard M., et al., Group rumination-focused cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) v. group CBT for depression: phase II trial. Psychol Med, 2020. 50(1): p. 11–19. pmid:30630555

30. Martiny K., et al., Maintained superiority of chronotherapeutics vs. exercise in a 20-week randomized follow-up trial in major depression. Acta Psychiatr Scand, 2015. 131(6): p. 446–57. pmid:25689725

31. Burcusa S.L. and Iacono W.G., Risk for recurrence in depression. Clin Psychol Rev, 2007. 27(8): p. 959–85. pmid:17448579

32. Baldessarini R.J., et al., Illness risk following rapid versus gradual discontinuation of antidepressants. Am J Psychiatry, 2010. 167(8): p. 934–41. pmid:20478876

33. Sim K., et al., Prevention of Relapse and Recurrence in Adults with Major Depressive Disorder: Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Controlled Trials. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol, 2015. 19(2). pmid:26152228

34. Kessing L.V. and Andersen P.K., The effect of episodes on recurrence in affective disorder: a case register study. J Affect Disord, 1999. 53(3): p. 225–31. pmid:10404708

35. Kupfer D.J., Long-term treatment of depression. J Clin Psychiatry, 1991. 52 Suppl: p. 28–34. pmid:1903134

36. Tønning M.L., et al., The effect of smartphone-based monitoring and treatment on the rate and duration of psychiatric readmission in patients with unipolar depressive disorder: The RADMIS randomized controlled trial. J Affect Disord, 2021. 282: p. 354–363. pmid:33421863

37. Buckman J.E.J., et al., Risk factors for relapse and recurrence of depression in adults and how they operate: A four-phase systematic review and meta-synthesis. Clin Psychol Rev, 2018. 64: p. 13–38. pmid:30075313

38. Moriarty A.S., et al., Predicting and preventing relapse of depression in primary care. Br J Gen Pract, 2020. 70(691): p. 54–55. pmid:32001454

39. Gaynes B.N., Jackson W.C., and Rorie K.D., Major Depressive Disorder in the Primary Care Setting: Strategies to Achieve Remission and Recovery. J Fam Pract, 2015. 64(9): p. S4–s15. pmid:26546962

40. Rait G., et al., Recent trends in the incidence of recorded depression in primary care. Br J Psychiatry, 2009. 195(6): p. 520–4. pmid:19949202

41. Qin P. and Nordentoft M., Suicide risk in relation to psychiatric hospitalization: evidence based on longitudinal registers. Arch Gen Psychiatry, 2005. 62(4): p. 427–32. pmid:15809410

42. Hansen H.V., et al., The effects of centralised and specialised intervention in the early course of severe unipolar depressive disorder: a randomised clinical trial. PLoS One, 2012. 7(3): p. e32950. pmid:22442673

43. Bosman R.C., et al., Long-term antidepressant use: a qualitative study on perspectives of patients and GPs in primary care. Br J Gen Pract, 2016. 66(651): p. e708–19. pmid:27528709

44. Anthony W.A., Recovery from mental illness: The guiding vision of the mental health service system in the 1990s. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal, 1993. 16(4): p. 11–23.

45. Jørgensen K., et al., Recovery-oriented intersectoral care between mental health hospitals and community mental health services: An integrative review. Int J Soc Psychiatry, 2020: p. 20764020966634. pmid:33100119

46. Saxena S., Funk M.K., and Chisholm D., Comprehensive mental health action plan 2013–2020. East Mediterr Health J, 2015. 21(7): p. 461–3. pmid:26442884

47. Rossi A., et al., The complex relationship between self-reported ’personal recovery’ and clinical recovery in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res, 2018. 192: p. 108–112. pmid:28495492

48. Slade M., et al., REFOCUS Trial: protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial of a pro-recovery intervention within community based mental health teams. BMC Psychiatry, 2011. 11: p. 185. pmid:22112008

49. Turton P., et al., One size fits all: or horses for courses? Recovery-based care in specialist mental health services. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol, 2011. 46(2): p. 127–36. pmid:21391337

50. Leamy M., et al., Conceptual framework for personal recovery in mental health: systematic review and narrative synthesis. Br J Psychiatry, 2011. 199(6): p. 445–52. pmid:22130746

51. Bird V., et al., Fit for purpose? Validation of a conceptual framework for personal recovery with current mental health consumers. Aust N Z J Psychiatry, 2014. 48(7): p. 644–53. pmid:24413806

52. Stickley T., Wright N., and Slade M., The art of recovery: outcomes from participatory arts activities for people using mental health services. J Ment Health, 2018. 27(4): p. 367–373. pmid:29447483

53. Williams J., et al., Development and evaluation of the INSPIRE measure of staff support for personal recovery. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol, 2015. 50(5): p. 777–86. pmid:25409867

54. Fava G.A., Ruini C., and Belaise C., The concept of recovery in major depression. Psychol Med, 2007. 37(3): p. 307–17. pmid:17311684

55. Anthony W.A., A recovery-oriented service system: Setting some system level standards. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 2000. 24(2): p. 159–168.

56. Davidson L., et al., The top ten concerns about recovery encountered in mental health system transformation. Psychiatr Serv, 2006. 57(5): p. 640–5. pmid:16675756

57. Deegan P.E., Recovery: The lived experience of rehabilitation. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal, 1988. 11(4): p. 11–19.

58. Davidsen A.S., et al., Experiences of barriers to trans-sectoral treatment of patients with severe mental illness. A qualitative study. Int J Ment Health Syst, 2020. 14(1): p. 87. pmid:33292415

59. Gili M., et al., Interventions for preventing relapse or recurrence of depression in primary health care settings: A systematic review. Prev Med, 2015. 76 Suppl: p. S16–21.

60. Katon W., et al., A randomized trial of relapse prevention of depression in primary care. Arch Gen Psychiatry, 2001. 58(3): p. 241–7. pmid:11231831

61. Strand M., Gammon D., and Ruland C.M., Transitions from biomedical to recovery-oriented practices in mental health: a scoping review to explore the role of Internet-based interventions. BMC Health Serv Res, 2017. 17(1): p. 257. pmid:28388907

62. Winsper C., et al., How do recovery-oriented interventions contribute to personal mental health recovery? A systematic review and logic model. Clin Psychol Rev, 2020. 76: p. 101815. pmid:32062302

63. Blasi P.R., et al., Transitioning patients from outpatient mental health services to primary care: A rapid literature review. Implementation Research and Practice, 2021. 2: p. 26334895211041294. pmid:37089993

64. Gunn J., et al., A systematic review of complex system interventions designed to increase recovery from depression in primary care. BMC Health Serv Res, 2006. 6: p. 88. pmid:16842629

65. Sheehan D.V., et al., Restoring function in major depressive disorder: A systematic review. J Affect Disord, 2017. 215: p. 299–313. pmid:28364701

66. Richardson K. and Barkham M., Recovery from depression: a systematic review of perceptions and associated factors. J Ment Health, 2020. 29(1): p. 103–115. pmid:28877614

67. Smith S.M., et al., Shared care across the interface between primary and specialty care in management of long term conditions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2017. 2(2): p. Cd004910. pmid:28230899

68. O’Cathain A., et al., Guidance on how to develop complex interventions to improve health and healthcare. BMJ Open, 2019. 9(8): p. e029954. pmid:31420394

69. Craig P., et al., Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. Bmj, 2008. 337: p. a1655. pmid:18824488

70. Skivington K., et al., A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ, 2021. 374: p. n2061. pmid:34593508

71. Arksey H. and O’Malley L., Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2005. 8(1): p. 19–32.

72. Levac D., Colquhoun H., and O’Brien K.K., Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci, 2010. 5: p. 69. pmid:20854677

73. Peters M.D., et al., Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc, 2015. 13(3): p. 141–6. pmid:26134548

74. Peters M.D.J., et al., Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth, 2020. 18(10): p. 2119–2126. pmid:33038124

75. Grimshaw J. A guide to knowledge synthesis: a knowledge synthesis chapter. Available from: https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/41382.html.

76. Peters M., et al., Joanna Briggs Institute reviewer’s manual. The Joanna Briggs Institute, 2017.

77. Peters M.D.J., et al., Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. JBI Evid Synth, 2022. pmid:35102103

78. Tricco A.C., et al., PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med, 2018. 169(7): p. 467–473. pmid:30178033

79. Munthe-Kaas H., et al., The TRANSFER Approach for assessing the transferability of systematic review findings. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2020. 20(1): p. 11. pmid:31952495

80. Page M.J., et al., The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Bmj, 2021. 372: p. n71. pmid:33782057

81. Lenzen S.A., et al., Disentangling self-management goal setting and action planning: A scoping review. PLoS One, 2017. 12(11): p. e0188822. pmid:29176800