Guideline Adherence Rates and Interprofessional Variation in a Vignette Study of Depression

Published In: Quality and Safety In Health Care, v. 11, no. 3, Sep. 2002, p. 214-218

Posted on on January 01, 2002

by H Tiemeier, W. J de Vries, Mirjam van het Loo, James P. Kahan, Niek S. Klazinga, R Grol, Henk Rigter

Read More

Access further information on this document at

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the appropriateness of and variation in intention-to-treat decisions in the management of depression in the Netherlands. DESIGN: Mailed survey with 22 paper cases (vignettes) based on a population study. SETTING: A random sample from four professional groups in the Dutch mental healthcare system. SUBJECTS: 264 general practitioners, psychiatrists, psychotherapists, and clinical psychologists. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE: Each vignette contained information on a number of patient characteristics taken from three national depression guidelines. The distribution of patient characteristics was based on data from a population study. Respondents were asked to choose the best treatment option and the best treatment setting. For each vignette the authors examined which of the selected treatments was appropriate according to the recommendations of the three published Dutch clinical guidelines and a panel of experts. RESULTS: 31% of all intention-to-treat decisions were not consistent with the guidelines. Overall, less severe depression, alcohol abuse, psychotic features, and lack of social resources were related to more inappropriate judgements. There was considerable variation between the professional groups: psychiatrists made more appropriate choices than the other professions although they had the highest rate of overtreatment. CONCLUSIONS: There is sufficient variation in the intentions to treat depression to give it priority in quality assessment and guideline development. Efforts to achieve appropriate care should focus on treatment indications, referral patterns, and overtreatment.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.