Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  525 / 812 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 525 / 812 Next Page
Page Background

24th European Congress of Psychiatry / European Psychiatry 33S (2016) S349–S805

S521

2

“Prof. Dr. Alexandru Obregia” Clinical Hospital of Psychiatry, 3th

Department, Bucuresti, Romania

3

“Prof. Dr. Alexandru Obregia” Clinical Hospital of Psychiatry, 4th

Department, Bucuresti, Romania

4

“Prof. Dr. Alexandru Obregia” Clinical Hospital of Psychiatry, “Prof.

Dr. Alexandru Obregia” Clinical Hospital of Psychiatry, Bucuresti,

Romania

Corresponding author.

Introduction

The quality of life in patients with depression may

be a measure of the efficiency of its management. Although quality

of life is a subjective concept, difficult to assess, it may be reflected

by the degree of social adaptation and the individual’s level of func-

tioning.

Objective

The study evaluates the time evolution of depressive

symptoms and of some parameters attesting the quality of life

in patients diagnosed with depression who are on antidepressant

treatment.

Aims

Highlighting the evolution in time of depressive symp-

toms and patients’ perceptions on some aspects of quality of

life.

Methods

There were included 23 patients who met the criteria of

depressive episode, single or within recurrent depressive disorder,

according to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10-

AM), requiring antidepressant treatment. Subjects were evaluated

at baseline and after 12 weeks of treatment using the Hamilton

Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD), Sheehan disability scale (SDS),

Social Adjustment Scale – Self-report (SASS).

Results

Statistically significant decrease in mean HAMD scores

was observed in the second administration. There were registered

statistically significant differences of scores obtained in the two

administrations for the 17 items of the SASS scale. Correlationswith

statistical significance between HAMD scores and some of the SDS

areas were observed.

Conclusions

Results showed a favorable course of depressive

symptoms while under treatment and differences in time of sub-

jects’ perception on several aspects evaluated on SASS for the group

studied. Correlations with statistical significance between HAMD

scores and some SDS areas were observed.

Disclosure of interest

The authors have not supplied their decla-

ration of competing interest.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2016.01.1521

EV537

A comparison of the improving in

major depressive symptoms as

reported by Romanian physicians and

patients in a prospective, multicenter,

observational study

T. Purnichi

1 ,

, V . M

arinescu

1 , M.

Ladea

1 , M.C

. Eda

2 ,

I. Marinescu

3 , M.

Pirlog

3 , I. P

avel

1 , D.

Mihalcea

1 , G.

Paraschiv

3 ,

C. Tudose

1

1

Alexadru Obregia Psychiatric Hospital, Psychiatry, Bucharest,

Romania

2

Constanta Psychiatric Hospital, Psychiatry, Constanta, Romania

3

Craiova Psychiatric Hospital, Psychiatry, Craiova, Romania

Corresponding author.

Introduction

Depression leads to substantial suffering for the

patients, their families and becomes an economic burden for

system [1,2]. Patients and clinicians tend to rate the remission dif-

ferently [3].

Objectives and methods

We investigate if clinicians and patients

rate different the treatment response. This study assed the evolu-

tion of major depressive episode (MDE) in patients treated with

Agomelatine, in Romania. It was designed as a multicentre, obser-

vational study that included 1213 adult patients evaluated in 75

sites in 2014. The design included 3 visits (baseline (V1); visit at 2/3

weeks (V2); visit 6/8 weeks (V3)). The scales used were: MADRS,

SHAPS, CGI-I, CGI-S, PGI-I, PGI-S.

Results

The MDE improvement was significant (

P

< 0.001) for all

aspects evaluated. At baseline, more clinicians vs. patients consid-

ered the moderately or markedly ill as best descriptors of the state.

The difference between the two assessments was even higher for

V2 and V3. During V2 clinicians reported “minimally improvement”

while patients reported “much improvement” in higher percent-

age. During V3, both, clinicians and patients reported a “very much

improved” clinical status. Of the patients 42.60% reported at V3

“normal”, not at all ill’ in comparison to 34.81% of clinicians who

reported the same (

P

< 0.001).

Conclusions

This could mean that patients are not aware of the

severity of their disease. This data could be interpreted in the way

that patients are more prone to rate higher the improvements as

response to treatment and the clinicians to rate as response a more

than 50% decrease of symptomatology.

References not available.

Disclosure of interest

The authors have not supplied their decla-

ration of competing interest.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2016.01.1522

EV538

Rumination and primary care

depression

K. Riihimäki

1 ,

, M. Vuorilehto

2

, P. Jylhä

2

, E. Isometsä

2

1

Health Care and Social Services, MPY, Järvenpää, Finland

2

University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Department

of Psychiatry, Helsinki, Finland

Corresponding author.

Introduction

Response styles theory postulates that rumination

is a central factor in occurrence, severity and maintaining of

depression. High neuroticism has been associated with tendency

to ruminate.

Objective

To evaluate the relationships between rumination,

neuroticism and depression in a naturalistic prospective cohort

of primary care patients with depressive disorders with life-chart

methodology.

Aims

We hypothesized, that rumination would correlate with

severity and duration of depression and with concurrent anxiety,

gender and neuroticism.

Methods

In the Vantaa Primary Care Depression Study, a strat-

ified random sample of 1119 adult patients was screened for

depression using the Prime-MD. Depressive and comorbid psychi-

atric disorders were diagnosed using SCID-I/P and SCID-II. Of the

137 patients with depressive disorders, 82% completed the five-

year follow-upwith a graphic life chart. Neuroticismwas measured

with the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI-Q). Response styles

were investigated at five years using the Response Styles Ques-

tionnaire (RSQ-43).

Results

Rumination correlated significantly with Hamilton

Depression Rating Scale (

r

= 0.54), Beck Depression Inventory

(

r

= 0.61), BeckAnxiety Inventory (

r

= 0.50), BeckHopelessness Scale

(

r

= 0.51) and Neuroticism (

r

= 0.58). Rumination correlated also

with proportion of follow-up time spent depressed (

r

= 0.38). In

multivariate regression, high rumination was significantly pre-

dicted by current depressive symptoms and neuroticism, but not

by anxiety symptoms or preceding duration of depressive episodes.

Conclusions

Rumination correlated with current severity of

depression, but the association with preceding episode duration

remained uncertain. The association between neuroticism and

ruminationwas strong. The findings are consistentwith rumination

as a state-related phenomenon, which is also strongly intertwined

with traits predisposing to depression.

Disclosure of interest

The authors have not supplied their decla-

ration of competing interest.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2016.01.1523