We try to publish authors’ responses in the same edition with readers’ comments. Time constraints might prevent this in some cases. The problem is compounded in a bimonthly journal where continuity of comment and redress are difficult to achieve. When the redress appears 2 months after the comment, 4 months will have passed since the article was published. Therefore, we would suggest to our readers that their correspondence about published papers be submitted as soon as possible after the article appears.
To the Editor: The article titled “Depression Treatment in Primary Care” by Robinson et al1 is very well written and comprehensively scores the need to reassess the type of therapy offered. Having gone through the article, we are impelled to write a few of our observations, in the hope that we might contribute to the research on treatment of the geriatric population.
Is there a haste involved in starting the therapy for depression, especially in the geriatric population? There should be a need to reflect why less than 5% of the patients were grouped into the “watchful waiting” and “support group” categories.1 Moreover, for the geriatric age group, multifaceted interventions and principles of collaborative care result in best outcomes.1,2 Were the patients given a choice or was it that the interplay of the capacity to pay and the type of insurance held that had determined the modality of treatment. We propose introspection by the readers on the above issues, in the backdrop of a research finding expressing the preference of geriatric patients for psychological interventions.3
