Long-term effects of a collaborative care intervention in persistently depressed primary care patients

Effectiveness of guided self-help for depression and anxiety disorders in primary care: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial

The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of (guided) self-help in primary care for patients diagnosed with a minor or major mood and/or anxiety disorder. The study population consists of 120 (screened) primary care patients aged 18-65 years with at least one mood and/or anxiety disorder. The primary focus is the reduction of depressive and anxiety symptoms. The self-help courses (Problem Solving Treatment and exposure) took 6 weeks to complete. The self-help group reported slightly better outcomes than the care-as-usual group but these results were not significant: d=-0.18 (95% CI=-2.29 to 7.31) for symptoms of depression and d=-0.20 (95% CI=-0.74 to 2.29) for symptoms of anxiety. For patients with an anxiety disorder only, the anxiety symptoms decreased significantly compared to the care-as-usual group (d=-0.68; 95% CI=0.25 to 4.77). Self-help seems only slightly superior to care-as-usual and therefore might not be an effective tool in general practice. But the lack of results could also be due to our selection of patients or to our selection of GPs (with interest in psychiatric disorders). Nonetheless the promising signals with respect to anxiety disorders warrant further research.

Effectiveness of service linkages in primary mental health care: a narrative review part 1

BACKGROUND

With the move to community care and increased involvement of generalist health care providers in mental health, the need for health service partnerships has been emphasised in mental health policy. Within existing health system structures the active strategies that facilitate effective partnership linkages are not clear. The objective of this study was to examine the evidence from peer reviewed literature regarding the effectiveness of service linkages in primary mental health care.

METHODS

A narrative and thematic review of English language papers published between 1998 and 2009. Studies of analytic, descriptive and qualitative designs from Australia, New Zealand, UK, Europe, USA and Canada were included. Data were extracted to examine what service linkages have been used in studies of collaboration in primary mental health care. Findings from the randomised trials were tabulated to show the proportion that demonstrated clinical, service delivery and economic benefits.

RESULTS

A review of 119 studies found ten linkage types. Most studies used a combination of linkage types and so the 42 RCTs were grouped into four broad linkage categories for meaningful descriptive analysis of outcomes. Studies that used multiple linkage strategies from the suite of "direct collaborative activities" plus "agreed guidelines" plus "communication systems" showed positive clinical (81%), service (78%) and economic (75%) outcomes. Most evidence of effectiveness came from studies of depression. Long term benefits were attributed to medication concordance and the use of case managers with a professional background who received expert supervision. There were fewer randomised trials related to collaborative care of people with psychosis and there were almost none related to collaboration with the wider human service sectors. Because of the variability of study types we did not exclude on quality or attempt to weight findings according to power or effect size.

CONCLUSION

There is strong evidence to support collaborative primary mental health care for people with depression when linkages involve "direct collaborative activity", plus "agreed guidelines" and "communication systems".

Safety of telemental healthcare delivered to clinically unsupervised settings: a systematic review

The safety of telemental healthcare delivered to clinically unsupervised settings, such as a personal residence, must be established to inform policy and further the dissemination of telemental health programs. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of safety issues associated with telemental healthcare and, through a systematic literature review, evaluate the safety of telemental healthcare delivered to unsupervised settings. The review resulted in a total of nine studies that specifically evaluated the delivery of telemental healthcare to unsupervised settings. Six of the nine studies reviewed explicitly described safety plans or specific precautions that could be used if necessary. Two of the nine studies reported events that required the researchers to use safety procedures to effectively respond to concerns they had regarding participant safety. In both of these studies, the issues were resolved with prescribed safety procedures. Recommendations and future directions for the development and evaluation of safety protocols are discussed.

Health costs in patients treated for depression, in patients with depressive symptoms treated for another chronic disorder, and in non-depressed patients: a two-year prospective cohort study in anthroposophic outpatient settings

We studied costs of healthcare and productivity loss in 487 German outpatients starting anthroposophic treatment: Group 1 was treated for depression, Group 2 had depressive symptoms but were treated for another chronic disorder, while Group 3 did not have depressive symptoms. Costs were adjusted for socio-demographics, comorbidity, and baseline health status. Total costs in groups 1-3 averaged euro7,129, euro4,371, and euro3,532 in the pre-study year (P = 0.008); euro6,029, euro3,522, and euro3,353 in the first year (P = 0.083); and euro4,929, euro3,792, and euro4,031 in the second year (P = 0.460). In the 2nd year, costs were significantly reduced in Group 1. This study underlines the importance of depression for health costs, and suggests that treatment of depression could be associated with long-term cost reductions.

VA mental health services utilization in Iraq and Afghanistan veterans in the first year of receiving new mental health diagnoses

Little is known about mental health services utilization among Iraq and Afghanistan veterans receiving care at Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities. Of 49,425 veterans with newly diagnosed posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), only 9.5% attended 9 or more VA mental health sessions in 15 weeks or less in the first year of diagnosis. In addition, engagement in 9 or more VA treatment sessions for PTSD within 15 weeks varied by predisposing variables (age and gender), enabling variables (clinic of first mental health diagnosis and distance from VA facility), and need (type and complexity of mental health diagnoses). Thus, only a minority of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans with new PTSD diagnoses received a recommended number and intensity of VA mental health treatment sessions within the first year of diagnosis.

Review: the net benefits of depression management in primary care

Depression is often diagnosed and treated in primary care settings. Organizational and systems interventions that restructure primary care practices and train staff have been shown to be cost-effective strategies for treating depression. Funders are increasingly calling for a cost-benefit assessment of such programs. In this study, the authors review existing cost-effectiveness studies of primary care depression treatments, classify them into categories, translate the results into net benefit terms, and assess whether more costly programs generate greater net benefit. The authors find that interventions that provide training to primary care teams in how to manage depression most consistently produce net benefits, with more costly interventions of this type generating larger net benefits than less costly interventions. Collaborative care interventions, which add specialized staff to primary care practices, and therapy interventions, in which clinicians are trained to provide therapy, also generate net social benefits at conventional valuations of quality-adjusted life years.

Cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for the treatment of major depressive disorder in primary care. A systematic review

Background

The effectiveness of collaborative care for patients with major depressive disorder in primary care has been established. Assessing its cost-effectiveness is important for deciding on implementation. This review therefore evaluates the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for major depressive disorder in primary care.

Methods

A systematic search on economic evaluations of collaborative care was conducted in Pubmed and PsychInfo. Quality of the studies was measured with the Cochrane checklist and the CHEC-list for economic evaluations. Cost-effectiveness and costs per depression-free days were reported.

Results

8 studies were found, involving 4868 patients. The quality of the cost effectiveness studies, according to the CHEC-list, could be improved. Generally, the studies did not include all relevant costs and did not perform sensitivity analysis. Only 4 out of 8 studies reported cost per QALY, 6 out of 8 reported costs per depression-free days. The highest costs per QALY reported were $49,500, the highest costs per depression-free day were $24.

Conclusions

Although studies did not fulfil all criteria of the CHEC-list, collaborative care is a promising intervention and it may be cost-effective. However, to conclude on the cost-effectiveness, depression research should follow economic guidelines to improve the quality of the economic evaluations.

Collaborative depression care: history, evolution and ways to enhance dissemination and sustainability

OBJECTIVE

To describe the history and evolution of the collaborative depression care model and new research aimed at enhancing dissemination.

METHOD

Four keynote speakers from the 2009 NIMH Annual Mental Health Services Meeting collaborated in this article in order to describe the history and evolution of collaborative depression care, adaptation of collaborative care to new populations and medical settings, and optimal ways to enhance dissemination of this model.

RESULTS

Extensive evidence across 37 randomized trials has shown the effectiveness of collaborative care vs. usual primary care in enhancing quality of depression care and in improving depressive outcomes for up to 2 to 5 years. Collaborative care is currently being disseminated in large health care organizations such as the Veterans Administration and Kaiser Permanente, as well as in fee-for-services systems and federally funded clinic systems of care in multiple states. New adaptations of collaborative care are being tested in pediatric and ob-gyn populations as well as in populations of patients with multiple comorbid medical illnesses. New NIMH-funded research is also testing community-based participatory research approaches to collaborative care to attempt to decrease disparities of care in underserved minority populations.

CONCLUSION

Collaborative depression care has extensive research supporting the effectiveness of this model. New research and demonstration projects have focused on adapting this model to new populations and medical settings and on studying ways to optimally disseminate this approach to care, including developing financial models to incentivize dissemination and partnerships with community populations to enhance sustainability and to decrease disparities in quality of mental health care.

Implementation research design: integrating participatory action research into randomized controlled trials

Background

A gap continues to exist between what is known to be effective and what is actually delivered in the usual course of medical care. The goal of implementation research is to reduce this gap. However, a tension exists between the need to obtain generalizeable knowledge through implementation trials, and the inherent differences between healthcare organizations that make standard interventional approaches less likely to succeed. The purpose of this paper is to explore the integration of participatory action research and randomized controlled trial (RCT) study designs to suggest a new approach for studying interventions in healthcare settings.

Discussion

We summarize key elements of participatory action research, with particular attention to its collaborative, reflective approach. Elements of participatory action research and RCT study designs are discussed and contrasted, with a complex adaptive systems approach used to frame their integration.

Summary

The integration of participatory action research and RCT design results in a new approach that reflects not only the complex nature of healthcare organizations, but also the need to obtain generalizeable knowledge regarding the implementation process.

Depression treatment preferences after traumatic brain injury

OBJECTIVE

To determine preferences for depression treatment modalities and settings among persons with traumatic brain injury (TBI).

DESIGN

Telephone survey. Depression status was determined using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9.

SETTING

Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, Washington, the level I trauma center serving Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Alaska.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred forty-five adults, English-speaking consecutive patients admitted with complicated mild to severe TBI.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Telephone survey within 12 months post-TBI ascertaining preferences for depression treatment modalities and settings.

RESULTS

More patients favored physical exercise or counseling as a depression treatment than other treatment modalities. Group therapy was the least favored modality. Patients favored speaking with a clinician in the clinic or over the telephone and were less likely to communicate with a clinician over the Internet. Subjects with probable major depression or a history of antidepressant use or outpatient mental health treatment were more likely to express a preference for antidepressants for treatment of depression.

CONCLUSIONS

This study underscores the importance of understanding patient preferences and providing patient education in selecting a treatment for depression after TBI. Future studies should examine psychotherapy and alternative treatment modalities and delivery models for the management of depression in this vulnerable population.

[Major depression in primary care and clinical impacts of treatment strategies: a literature review]

Major or clinical depression represents a frequent mental illness that is often associated with a high level of morbidity and mortality. Yet, major depression remains under-diagnosed and under-treated. On the level of treatment, it would appear desirable for reasons of better prognosis, to aim more than the simple reduction of depressive symptoms and target their remission resolutely and the fastest return to the individual's optimal functioning. This article presents a systematic review of the literature relating to the clinical impacts of treatment strategies aiming at the improvement of services offered to people who suffer of clinical depression and who consult in primary care. The authors summarize results drawn from 41 studies that include a measurement of the clinical impacts (reduction of symptoms, response, remission and functioning) of various treatment strategies. It appears that using complex treatment strategies favour positive outcomes. The authors propose various paths of research to further increase current knowledge.

Psychologists and primary care physicians: a training model for creating collaborative relationships

For over a decade insurance reform, changes in health care delivery, reimbursement policies, and managed care have increased pressure on psychologists to diversify beyond traditional practices. Despite the negative impact of failing to make a transformation, most psychologists have not modified their practice and most training programs do not prepare psychologists to provide integrated care. The current paper describes the importance of primary care and psychology partnering to create integrated care models and makes the case that such partnerships are not only beneficial to patients but to both professions. The paper concludes with a description of a training model that has been implemented at the institution of the authors that provides opportunities for psychologists to learn how to practice in primary care settings.

Treatment of mental disorder in the primary care setting in the Netherlands in the light of the new reimbursement system: a challenge?

Introduction

Different professionals provide health care for mental disorder in the primary care setting. In view of the changing reimbursement system in the Netherlands, information is needed on their specific expertise.

Method

This study attempts to describe this by literature study, by assessment of expert opinions, and by consulting Associations of the relevant professions.

Results

There is no clear differentiation of expertise and tasks amongst these professionals in primary care. Notably, distinction between different psychotherapeutic treatment modes provided by psychologists is unclear.

Discussion

Research is needed to assess actual treatment modules in correlation with patient diagnostic classification for the different professions in primary care. An alternative way of classifying patients, that takes into account not only mental disorder or problems but especially the level of functioning, is proposed to discern which patients can be treated in primary care, and which patients should not. Integrated care models are promising, because many professionals can be involved in treatment of mental disorder in the primary care setting; especially for collaborative care models, evidence favours the treatment of common mental disorders in this setting.

Conclusion

Integrated care models, such as collaborative care, provide a basis for multidisciplinary care for mental disorder in the primary care setting. Professional responsibilities should be clearly differentiated in order to facilitate integrated care. The level of functioning of patients with mental disorder can be used as indication criterion for treatment in the primary care setting or in Mental Health Institutions. Research to establish the feasibility of this model is needed.

Long term GP opinions and involvement after a consultation-liaison intervention for mental health problems

Background

Shared Mental Health care between Psychiatry and Primary care has been developed to improve the care of common mental health problems but has not hitherto been adequately evaluated. The present study evaluated a consultation-liaison intervention with two objectives: to explore long-term GP opinions (relating to impact on their management and on patient medical outcome) and to determine the secondary referral rate, after a sufficient time lapse following the intervention to reflect a "real-world" primary care setting.

Methods

All the 139 collaborating GPs (response rate: 84.9%) were invited two years after the intervention to complete a retrospective telephone survey for each patient (181 patients; response rate: 69.6%).

Results

91.2% of GPs evaluated effects as positive for primary care management (mainly as support) and 58.9% noted positive effects for patient medical outcome. Two years post-intervention, management was shared care for 79.7% of patients (the GP as the psychiatric care provider) and care by a psychiatrist for 20.3% patients. Secondary referral occurred finally in 44.2% of cases.

Conclusion

The intervention supported GP partners in their management of patients with common mental health problems. Further studies are required on the appropriateness of the care provider.

Long-term effects on medical costs of improving depression outcomes in patients with depression and diabetes

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine the 5-year effects on total health care costs of the Pathways depression intervention program for patients with diabetes and comorbid depression compared with usual primary care.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The Pathways Study was conducted in nine primary care practices of a large HMO and enrolled 329 patients with diabetes and comorbid major depression. The current study analyzed the differences in long-term medical costs between intervention and usual care patients. Participants were randomly assigned to a nurse depression intervention (n = 164) or to usual primary care (n = 165). The intervention included education about depression, behavioral activation, and a choice of either starting with support of antidepressant medication treatment by the primary care doctor or problem-solving therapy in primary care. Interventions were provided for up to 12 months, and the main outcome measures are health costs over a 5-year period.

RESULTS

Patients in the intervention arm of the study had improved depression outcomes and trends for reduced 5-year mean total medical costs of -$3,907 (95% CI -$15,454 less to $7,640 more) compared with usual care patients. A sensitivity analysis found that these cost differences were largely explained by the patients with depression and the most severe medical comorbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

The Pathways depression collaborative care program improved depression outcomes compared with usual care with no evidence of greater long-term costs and with trends for reduced costs among the more severely medically ill patients with diabetes.

Interventions for enhancing medication adherence

BACKGROUND

People who are prescribed self-administered medications typically take less than half the prescribed doses. Efforts to assist patients with adherence to medications might improve the benefits of prescribed medications, but also might increase their adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

To update a review summarizing the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to help patients follow prescriptions for medications for medical problems, including mental disorders but not addictions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We updated searches of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), PsycINFO (all via OVID) and Sociological Abstracts (via CSA) in January 2007 with no language restriction. We also reviewed bibliographies in articles on patient adherence and articles in our personal collections, and contacted authors of relevant original and review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Articles were selected if they reported an unconfounded RCT of an intervention to improve adherence with prescribed medications, measuring both medication adherence and treatment outcome, with at least 80% follow-up of each group studied and, for long-term treatments, at least six months follow-up for studies with positive initial findings.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Study design features, interventions and controls, and results were extracted by one review author and confirmed by at least one other review author. We extracted adherence rates and their measures of variance for all methods of measuring adherence in each study, and all outcome rates and their measures of variance for each study group, as well as levels of statistical significance for differences between study groups, consulting authors and verifying or correcting analyses as needed. The studies differed widely according to medical condition, patient population, intervention, measures of adherence, and clinical outcomes. Therefore, we did not feel that quantitative analysis was scientifically justified; rather, we conducted a qualitative analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

For short-term treatments, four of ten interventions reported in nine RCTs showed an effect on both adherence and at least one clinical outcome, while one intervention reported in one RCT significantly improved patient adherence, but did not enhance the clinical outcome. For long-term treatments, 36 of 81 interventions reported in 69 RCTs were associated with improvements in adherence, but only 25 interventions led to improvement in at least one treatment outcome. Almost all of the interventions that were effective for long-term care were complex, including combinations of more convenient care, information, reminders, self-monitoring, reinforcement, counseling, family therapy, psychological therapy, crisis intervention, manual telephone follow-up, and supportive care. Even the most effective interventions did not lead to large improvements in adherence and treatment outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For short-term treatments several quite simple interventions increased adherence and improved patient outcomes, but the effects were inconsistent from study to study with less than half of studies showing benefits. Current methods of improving adherence for chronic health problems are mostly complex and not very effective, so that the full benefits of treatment cannot be realized. High priority should be given to fundamental and applied research concerning innovations to assist patients to follow medication prescriptions for long-term medical disorders.

Interventions designed to improve the quality and efficiency of medication use in managed care: a critical review of the literature - 2001-2007

Background

Managed care organizations use a variety of strategies to reduce the cost and improve the quality of medication use. The effectiveness of such policies is not well understood. The objective of this research was to update a previous systematic review of interventions, published between 1966 and 2001, to improve the quality and efficiency of medication use in the US managed care setting.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for publications from July 2001 to January 2007 describing interventions targeting drug use conducted in the US managed care setting. We categorized studies by intervention type and adequacy of research design using commonly accepted criteria. We summarized the outcomes of well-controlled strategies and documented the significance and magnitude of effects for key study outcomes.

Results

We identified 164 papers published during the six-year period. Predominant strategies were: educational interventions (n = 20, including dissemination of educational materials, and group or one-to-one educational outreach); monitoring and feedback (n = 22, including audit/feedback and computerized monitoring); formulary interventions (n = 66, including tiered formulary and patient copayment); collaborative care involving pharmacists (n = 15); and disease management with pharmacotherapy as a primary focus (n = 41, including care for depression, asthma, and peptic ulcer disease). Overall, 51 studies met minimum criteria for methodological adequacy. Effective interventions included one-to-one academic detailing, computerized alerts and reminders, pharmacist-led collaborative care, and multifaceted disease management. Further, changes in formulary tier-design and related increases in copayments were associated with reductions in medication use and increased out-of-pocket spending by patients. The dissemination of educational materials alone had little or no impact, while the impact of group education was inconclusive.

Conclusion

There is good evidence for the effectiveness of several strategies in changing drug use in the managed care environment. However, little is known about the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. Computerized alerts showed promise in improving short-term outcomes but little is known about longer-term outcomes. Few well-designed, published studies have assessed the potential negative clinical effects of formulary-related interventions despite their widespread use. However, some evidence suggests increases in cost sharing reduce access to essential medicines for chronic illness.

A stepped care programme for depression management: an uncontrolled pre-post study in primary and secondary care in The Netherlands

INTRODUCTION

Stepped care strategies are potentially effective to organise integrated care but unknown is whether they function well in practice. This paper evaluates the implementation of a stepped care programme for depression in primary care and secondary care.

THEORY AND METHODS

We developed a stepped care algorithm for diagnostics and treatment of depression, supported by a liaison-consultation function. In a 2(1/2) year study with pre-post design in a pilot region, adherence to the protocol was assessed by interviewing 28 caregivers of 235 patients with mild, moderate, or severe major depression. Consultation and referral patterns between primary and secondary care were analysed.

RESULTS

Adherence of general practitioners and consultant caregivers to the stepped care protocol proved to be 96%. The percentage of patients referred for depression to secondary care decreased significantly from 26% to 21% (p=0.0180). In the post-period more patients received treatment in primary care and requests for consultation became more concordant with the stepped care protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a stepped care programme is feasible in a primary and secondary care setting and is associated with less referrals.

DISCUSSION

Further research on all subsequent treatment steps in a standardised stepped care protocol is needed.

Long-term cost effects of collaborative care for late-life depression

OBJECTIVE

To determine the long-term effects on total healthcare costs of the Improving Mood: Promoting Access to Collaborative Treatment (IMPACT) program for late-life depression compared with usual care.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial with enrollment from July 1999 through August 2001. The IMPACT trial, conducted in primary care practices in 8 delivery organizations across the United States, enrolled 1801 depressed primary care patients 60 years or older. Data are from the 2 IMPACT sites for which 4-year cost data were available. Trial enrollment across these 2 health maintenance organizations was 551 patients.

METHODS

Participants were randomly assigned to the IMPACT intervention (n = 279) or to usual primary care (n = 272). Intervention patients had access to a depression care manager who provided education, behavioral activation, support of antidepressant medication management prescribed by their regular primary care provider, and problem-solving treatment in primary care for up to 12 months. Care managers were supervised by a psychiatrist and a primary care provider. The main outcome measures were healthcare costs during 4 years.

RESULTS

IMPACT participants had lower mean total healthcare costs ($29 422; 95% confidence interval, $26 479-$32 365) than usual care patients ($32 785; 95% confidence interval, $27 648-$37 921) during 4 years. Results of a bootstrap analysis suggested an 87% probability that the IMPACT program was associated with lower healthcare costs than usual care.

CONCLUSION

Compared with usual primary care, the IMPACT program is associated with a high probability of lower total healthcare costs during a 4-year period.

Depression in public community long-term care: implications for intervention development

The objective of this paper is to increase understanding of geriatric depression in the public community long-term care system to guide intervention development. Protocols included screening 1,170 new clients of a public community long-term care agency and interviewing all clients with major, dysthymia, or subthreshold depression (n = 299) and a randomly selected subset of nondepressed older adults (n = 315) at baseline, 6-month, and 1 year. Six percent had major depression, one-half of a percent had dysthymia only, and another 19% had subthreshold depression. Over the year observation period, 40% were persistently depressed; 32% were assessed as depressed only at the first observation; and the remainder was intermittently depressed. There were high levels of comorbid medical, functional, and psychosocial conditions. Mental health service use was low, and clients reported attitudinal and other barriers to depression treatment. Findings suggest the need for universal screening for depression with some strategies for triaging the most severely and persistently depressed for treatment. Although there will be challenges to the development of depression interventions, the public community long-term care system has high potential to assist vulnerable older adults receive help with depression.

Controlled trial of problem-solving therapy and consultation-liaison for common mental disorders in general medical settings in Taiwan

OBJECTIVE

Common mental disorders (CMD) are prevalent high-impact illnesses seen in general medical settings worldwide. There has been no investigation on the efficacy of enhanced care in Chinese societies. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of three interventions for treating CMD: usual care (UC), problem-solving therapy plus UC (PST-UC), and psychiatric consultation plus UC (PC-UC).

METHOD

The sample for this randomized controlled trial consisted of 254 patients with CMD being managed in general medical care settings. Clinical and functional assessments were done at baseline and at 16 weeks.

RESULTS

Two hundred six patients had complete data at 16 weeks (66 in the UC group, 63 in the PST-UC group, 77 in the PC-UC group). All patients had significant improvement on all scales over time, with no significant differences among the three treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

This trial failed to demonstrate the efficacy of enhanced care with consultation-liaison by mental health professionals for patients with CMD in general medical settings in Taiwan. Improved outcomes may require more integrated interventions.

Organizational interventions employing principles of complexity science have improved outcomes for patients with Type II diabetes

BACKGROUND

Despite the development of several models of care delivery for patients with chronic illness, consistent improvements in outcomes have not been achieved. These inconsistent results may be less related to the content of the models themselves, but to their underlying conceptualization of clinical settings as linear, predictable systems. The science of complex adaptive systems (CAS), suggests that clinical settings are non-linear, and increasingly has been used as a framework for describing and understanding clinical systems. The purpose of this study is to broaden the conceptualization by examining the relationship between interventions that leverage CAS characteristics in intervention design and implementation, and effectiveness of reported outcomes for patients with Type II diabetes.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature on organizational interventions to improve care of Type II diabetes. For each study we recorded measured process and clinical outcomes of diabetic patients. Two independent reviewers gave each study a score that reflected whether organizational interventions reflected one or more characteristics of a complex adaptive system. The effectiveness of the intervention was assessed by standardizing the scoring of the results of each study as 0 (no effect), 0.5 (mixed effect), or 1.0 (effective).

RESULTS

Out of 157 potentially eligible studies, 32 met our eligibility criteria. Most studies were felt to utilize at least one CAS characteristic in their intervention designs, and ninety-one percent were scored as either "mixed effect" or "effective." The number of CAS characteristics present in each intervention was associated with effectiveness (p = 0.002). Two individual CAS characteristics were associated with effectiveness: interconnections between participants and co-evolution.

CONCLUSION

The significant association between CAS characteristics and effectiveness of reported outcomes for patients with Type II diabetes suggests that complexity science may provide an effective framework for designing and implementing interventions that lead to improved patient outcomes.

Effectiveness of shared care across the interface between primary and specialty care in chronic disease management

BACKGROUND

Shared care has been used in the management of many chronic conditions with the assumption that it delivers better care than either primary or specialty care alone. It has been defined as the joint participation of primary care physicians and specialty care physicians in the planned delivery of care, informed by an enhanced information exchange over and above routine discharge and referral notices. It has the potential to offer improved quality and coordination of care delivery across the primary-specialty care interface and to improve outcomes for patients.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of shared-care health service interventions designed to improve the management of chronic disease across the primary-specialty care interface.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) Specialised Register (and the database of studies awaiting assessment); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE); MEDLINE (from 1966); EMBASE (from 1980) and CINAHL (from 1982). We also searched the reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series analyses of shared-care interventions for chronic disease management. The participants were primary care providers, specialty care providers and patients. The outcomes included physical health outcomes, mental health outcomes, and psychosocial health outcomes, treatment satisfaction, measures of care delivery including participation in services, delivery of care and prescribing of appropriate medications, and costs of shared care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed study quality.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty studies of shared care interventions for chronic disease management were identified, 19 of which were randomised controlled trials. The majority of studies examined complex multifaceted interventions and were of relatively short duration. The results were mixed. Overall there were no consistent improvements in physical or mental health outcomes, psychosocial outcomes, psychosocial measures including measures of disability and functioning, hospital admissions, default or participation rates, recording of risk factors and satisfaction with treatment. However, there were clear improvements in prescribing in the studies that considered this outcome. The methodological quality of studies varied considerably with only a minority of studies of high-quality design. Cost data were limited and difficult to interpret across studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review indicates that there is, at present, insufficient evidence to demonstrate significant benefits from shared care apart from improved prescribing. Methodological shortcomings, particularly inadequate length of follow-up, may partially account for this lack of evidence. This review indicates that there is no evidence to support the widespread introduction of shared care services at present. Future shared-care interventions should only be developed within research settings and with account taken of the complexity of such interventions and the need to carry out longer studies to test the effectiveness and sustainability of shared care over time.

Increased access to evidence‐based primary mental health care: will the implementation match the rhetoric?

There is clear evidence that coordinated systems of medical and psychological care ("collaborative care") are superior to single-provider-based treatment regimens. Although other general practice-based mental health schemes promoted collaborative care, the new Medicare Benefits Schedule payments revert largely to individual-provider service systems and fee-for-service rebates. Such systems have previously resulted in high out-of-pocket expenses, poor geographical and socioeconomic distribution of specialist services, and proliferation of individual-provider-based treatments rather than collaborative care. The new arrangements for broad access to psychological therapies should provide the financial basis for major structural reform. Unless this reform is closely monitored for equity of access, degree of out-of-pocket expenses, extent of development of evidence-based collaborative care structures, and impact on young people in the early phases of mental illness, we may waste this opportunity. The responsibility for achieving the best outcome does not lie only with governments. To date, the professions have not placed enough emphasis on systematically adopting evidence-based forms of collaborative care.

Improving quality of care for mental illness in an uninsured, low-income primary care population

OBJECTIVE

We assessed if an ongoing, multifaceted quality improvement program improved mental health care in a low-income, uninsured primary care clinic.

METHODS

We reviewed the charts of 500 consecutive patients in 1999 and 500 consecutive patients in 2004 to compare the number of mental health visits; the percentage of patients with more than three follow-up visits; the percentage with > or = 1 visit with a prescribing provider and the percentage with a psychiatric medication prescribed. We also assessed whether patients with more than one charted mental illness received more care than patients with one mental illness.

RESULTS

Compared to 1999, patients in 2004 had significantly more visits in the first 120 days (acute phase) of treatment (3.16 vs. 4.81, P<.001) and more visits in up to 9 months post acute phase (3.76 vs. 4.88, P>.012). A higher percentage of patients in the acute phase (28.9% vs. 49.5%, P<.001) had three follow-up visits, saw a medical provider and received a prescription. Patients with multiple charted mental illnesses had more visits than patients with one mental illness in 2004 but not in 1999 (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

An ongoing, multifaceted intervention improved the quality of mental health care in a primary care population with a high prevalence of mental illness.

Learning by doing: a novel approach to improving general practitioners' diagnostic skills for common mental disorders

INTRODUCTION

Two strategies have been proposed to increase the rather low recognition rate of common mental disorders in primary care: (1) the use of screening instruments and (2) extensive psychiatric training for general practitioners. We have chosen a "middle-of-the-road" approach to teach general practitioners by means of a time-saving psychiatric training programme how to make their own psychiatric diagnoses. This pilot study aimed at assessing the acceptance of this programme, its impact on general practitioners' knowledge of 12 ICD-10 disorders - depressive, anxiety and alcohol-related disorders - and the short-term persistence of the knowledge acquired.

METHODS

The training programme consisted of two 3-hour sessions four weeks apart. An educational instrument, a short interview named TRIPS (Training for Interactive Psychiatric Screening), a shortened and adapted form of PRIME-MD, was used to train single-handed general practitioners in Vienna, Austria. TRIPS had to be used by the participants in daily practice in between sessions. Five weeks after the second training session a follow-up evaluation was held to assess the persistence of the knowledge acquired. The perceived usefulness of TRIPS was assessed by a short questionnaire. Knowledge was assessed by a separate 15-item questionnaire.

RESULTS

Of the 31 participating general practitioners 26 attended all three sessions. There was a significant increase in the mean number of correctly answered questions between baseline (5.5 of 15) and session two (9.8; p<0.0001), and a further increase between the second and the follow-up session (11.3; p<0.05). Also, general practitioners rated TRIPS as a practical and useful tool for family practice and stated that its use met with patients' approval.

CONCLUSION

The format chosen was successful in its intended educational endpoints. According to participants TRIPS is appropriate for the family practice situation and is accepted by patients.

Systematic review of multifaceted interventions to improve depression care

OBJECTIVE

Depression is a prevalent high-impact illness with poor outcomes in primary care settings. We performed a systematic review to determine to what extent multifaceted interventions improve depression outcomes in primary care and to define key elements, patients who are likely to benefit and resources required for these interventions.

METHOD

We searched Medline, HealthSTAR, CINAHL, PsycINFO and a specialized registry of depression trials from 1966 to February 2006; reviewed bibliographies of pertinent articles; and consulted experts. Searches were limited to the English language. We included 28 randomized controlled trials that: (a) involved primary care patients receiving acute-phase treatment; (b) tested a multicomponent intervention involving a patient-directed component; and (c) reported effects on depression severity. Pairs of investigators independently abstracted information regarding (a) setting and subjects, (b) components of the intervention and (c) outcomes.

RESULTS

Twenty of 28 interventions improved depression outcomes over 3-12 months (an 18.4% median absolute increase in patients with 50% improvement in symptoms; range, 8.3-46%). Sustained improvements at 24-57 months were demonstrated in three studies addressing acute-phase and continuation-phase treatments. All interventions involved care management and required additional resources or staff reassignment to implement; interventions were delivered exclusively or predominantly by telephone in 16 studies. The most commonly used intervention features were: patient education and self-management, monitoring of depressive symptoms and treatment adherence, decision support for medication management, a patient registry and mental health supervision of care managers. Other intervention features were highly variable.

CONCLUSION

There is strong evidence supporting the short-term benefits of care management for depression; critical elements for successful programs are emerging.

Cost-effectiveness of collaborative care including PST and an antidepressant treatment algorithm for the treatment of major depressive disorder in primary care; a randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Depressive disorder is currently one of the most burdensome disorders worldwide. Evidence-based treatments for depressive disorder are already available, but these are used insufficiently, and with less positive results than possible. Earlier research in the USA has shown good results in the treatment of depressive disorder based on a collaborative care approach with Problem Solving Treatment and an antidepressant treatment algorithm, and research in the UK has also shown good results with Problem Solving Treatment. These treatment strategies may also work very well in the Netherlands too, even though health care systems differ between countries.

METHODS/DESIGN

This study is a two-armed randomised clinical trial, with randomization on patient-level. The aim of the trial is to evaluate the treatment of depressive disorder in primary care in the Netherlands by means of an adapted collaborative care framework, including contracting and adherence-improving strategies, combined with Problem Solving Treatment and antidepressant medication according to a treatment algorithm. Forty general practices will be randomised to either the intervention group or the control group. Included will be patients who are diagnosed with moderate to severe depression, based on DSM-IV criteria, and stratified according to comorbid chronic physical illness. Patients in the intervention group will receive treatment based on the collaborative care approach, and patients in the control group will receive care as usual. Baseline measurements and follow up measures (3, 6, 9 and 12 months) are assessed using questionnaires and an interview. The primary outcome measure is severity of depressive symptoms, according to the PHQ9. Secondary outcome measures are remission as measured with the PHQ9 and the IDS-SR, and cost-effectiveness measured with the TiC-P, the EQ-5D and the SF-36.

DISCUSSION

In this study, an American model to enhance care for patients with a depressive disorder, the collaborative care model, will be evaluated for effectiveness in the primary care setting. If effective across the Atlantic and across different health care systems, it is also likely to be an effective strategy to implement in the treatment of major depressive disorder in the Netherlands.

Cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for chronically ill patients with comorbid depressive disorder in the general hospital setting, a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Depressive disorder is one of the most common disorders, and is highly prevalent in chronically ill patients. The presence of comorbid depression has a negative influence on quality of life, health care costs, self-care, morbidity, and mortality. Early diagnosis and well-organized treatment of depression has a positive influence on these aspects. Earlier research in the USA has reported good results with regard to the treatment of depression with a collaborative care approach and an antidepressant algorithm. In the UK 'Problem Solving Treatment' has proved to be feasible. However, in the general hospital setting this approach has not yet been evaluated.

METHODS/DESIGN

CC: DIM (Collaborative Care: Depression Initiative in the Medical setting) is a two-armed randomised controlled trial with randomisation at patient level. The aim of the trial is to evaluate the treatment of depressive disorder in general hospitals in the Netherlands based on a collaborative care framework, including contracting, 'Problem Solving Treatment', antidepressant algorithm, and manual-guided self-help. 126 outpatients with diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or cardiovascular diseases will be randomised to either the intervention group or the control group. Patients will be included if they have been diagnosed with moderate to severe depression, based on the DSM-IV criteria in a two-step screening method. The intervention group will receive treatment based on the collaborative care approach; the control group will receive 'care as usual'. Baseline and follow-up measurements (after 3, 6, 9, and 12 months) will be performed by means of questionnaires. The primary outcome measure is severity of depressive symptoms, as measured with the PHQ-9. The secondary outcome measure is the cost-effectiveness of these treatments according to the TiC-P, the EuroQol and the SF-36.

DISCUSSION

Earlier research has indicated that depressive disorder is a chronic, mostly recurrent illness, which tends to cluster with physical comorbidity. Even though the treatment of depressive disorder based on the guidelines for depression is proven effective, these guidelines are often insufficiently adhered to. Collaborative care and 'Problem Solving Treatment' will be specifically tailored to patients with depressive disorders and evaluated in a general hospital setting in the Netherlands.

An evidence-based approach to the management of depression

Increasing numbers of patients are using complementary medicine for the treatment of depression, which complicates management. What is the evidence in support of one medication over another? What medications are safe to use in children and pregnant women? Is there any evidence supporting over-the-counter supplements? These are just a few of the questions that primary care physicians face on a daily basis. This article attempts to answer these questions and many others in an evidence-based approach to the management of depression, which focuses on diagnosis, medical management, and complementary treatments.

Randomised controlled trial of a collaborative care model with psychiatric consultation for persistent medically unexplained symptoms in general practice

BACKGROUND

Patients with persistent medically unexplained symptoms often exhibit general dysfunction and psychiatric comorbidity and frequently resist psychiatric referral. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a collaborative care model including training for general practitioners (GPs) and a psychiatric consultation model for patients with persistent medically unexplained symptoms in general practice.

METHOD

Randomised controlled trial. Cluster randomisation at GP practices and multilevel analysis were performed. A total of 81 patients from 36 general practices completed the study. A collaborative care model of training and psychiatric consultation in general practice in the presence of the GP was compared with training plus care as usual by the GP. Outcome assessment on the patients' well-being, functioning and utilisation of health care services was performed 6 weeks and 6 months later.

RESULTS

All the patients had somatoform disorders (Whitely Index 7.46), and 86% had comorbid psychiatric disorders. In the intervention group, the severity of the main medically unexplained symptoms decreased by 58%. The patients' social functioning improved. The utilization of health care was lower than in the care as usual group.

CONCLUSIONS

A collaborative care model combining training with psychiatric consultation in the general practice setting is an effective intervention in the treatment of persistent medically unexplained symptoms. Anxiety and depressive disorders are highly comorbid in this group. The findings warrant a larger study.

Costs and consequences of enhanced primary care for depression: systematic review of randomised economic evaluations

BACKGROUND

A number of enhancement strategies have been proposed to improve the quality and outcome of care for depression in primary care settings. Decision-makers are likely to need to know whether these interventions are cost-effective in routine primary care settings.

METHOD

We conducted a systematic review of all full economic evaluations (cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses) accompanying randomised controlled trials of enhanced primary care for depression. Costs were standardised to UK pounds/US dollars and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were visually summarised using a permutation matrix.

RESULTS

We identified 11 full economic evaluations (4757 patients). A near-uniform finding was that the interventions based upon collaborative care/case management resulted in improved outcomes but were also associated with greater costs. When considering primary care depression treatment costs alone, ICER estimates ranged from 7 ($13, no confidence interval given) to 13 UK pounds ($24,95% CI -105 to 148) per additional depression-free day. Educational interventions alone were associated with increased cost and no clinical benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Improved outcomes through depression management programmes using a collaborative care/case management approach can be expected, but are associated with increased cost and will require investment.

Epidemiologic trends and costs of fragmentation

The data that were reviewed in this article documented that in health systems, which manage behavioral health disorders independently from general medical disorders, the estimated 10% to 30% of patients with behavioral health service needs can expect (1) poor access or barriers to medical or mental health care; (2) when services are available, most provided will not meet minimum standards for expected outcome change; and (3) as a consequence of (1) and (2), medical and behavioral disorders will be more persistent with increased complications, will be associated with greater disability, and will lead to higher total health care and disability costs than will treatment of patients who do not have behavioral health disorders. This article proposes that these health system deficiencies will persist unless behavioral health services become an integral part of medical care (ie, integrated). By doing so, it creates a win-win situation for virtually all parties involved. Complex patients will receive coordinated general medical and behavioral health care that leads to improved outcomes. Clinicians and the hospitals that support integrated programs will be less encumbered by cross-disciplinary roadblocks as they deliver services that augment patient outcomes. Health plans (insurers) will be able to decrease administrative and claims costs because the complex patients who generate more than 80% of service use will have less complicated claims adjudication and better clinical outcomes. As a result, purchaser premiums, whether government programs, employers, or individuals, will decrease and the impact on national budgets will improve. Ongoing research will be important to assure that application of the best clinical and administrative practices are used to achieve these outcomes.

What should non-US behavioral health systems learn from the USA?: US behavior health services trends in the 1980s and 1990s

Several countries, such as the USA, inadvertently created a different behavioral health payment system from the rest of medicine through the introduction of diagnostic-related group exemptions for psychiatric care. This led to isolation in the administration and delivery of care for patients with mental health and substance abuse disorders from other medical services with significant, yet unintended, consequences. To insure an efficient and effective health-care system, it is necessary to recognize the problems introduced by segregating behavioral health from the rest of medical care. In this review, the authors assess trends in behavioral health services during the last two decades in the USA, a period in which independently managed behavioral health care has dominated administrative practices. During this time, behavioral health has been an easy target for aggressive cost cutting measures. There have been no clinically significant improvements in the number of adults receiving minimally adequate treatment or in the percentage of the population with behavior health problems receiving psychiatric care with the possible exception of depression. While decreased spending for behavioral health services has been well documented during this period, these savings are offset by costs shifted to greater medical service use with a net increase in the total cost of health care. Targeting behavioral health for reduction in health-care spending through independent management, starting with diagnostic procedure code or diagnostic-related group exemption may not be the wisest approach in addressing the increasing fiscal burden that medical care is placing on the national economy.

Algorithms and collaborative-care systems for depression: are they effective and why? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Treatment algorithms and collaborative-care systems are systematic treatment approaches that are designed to improve outcomes by enhancing the quality of care. During the last decade, algorithm research has evolved as a new branch of clinical research that evaluates the clinical and economic impact of algorithm-guided treatment in primary and psychiatric care of patients with depressive disorders.

METHODS

This article discusses the rationale of algorithm development, their risks and limitations, and important elements in their implementation in clinical practice. It further reviews the available studies that have evaluated algorithm-guided treatment for depression.

RESULTS

Recent studies show that compared with treatment as usual, the use of algorithms and collaborative-care approaches in the care of depressed patients enhances treatment outcomes by modifying practice procedures and treatment processes.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment algorithms and collaborative-care systems clearly increase the efficacy of applied treatments in the care of depressed patients. However, to what extent the enhanced outcomes are a result of diligent measurement-based care or of the specific treatment steps that are used remains to be resolved. Valid clinical or pharmacogenetic predictors of response are needed to further tailor specific algorithms to individual patients.

What Is Necessary To Transform The Quality Of Mental Health Care

Improving the quality of care is a national priority in the United States; however, it is not clear how to accelerate progress for mental health care. We recommend advances in three capacities: (1) developing quality improvement resources applicable to a diverse set of mental health disorders, clients, and service settings; (2) improving the infrastructure for providing evidence-based psychotherapy and psychosocial interventions; and (3) promoting innovation in financial incentives for quality improvement in mental health care. We also discuss the need to develop leadership among health care stakeholders and community engagement to promote public commitment to high-quality care in mental health.

Prescribing practices of psychiatrists and primary care physicians caring for children with mental illness

OBJECTIVE

Although several studies have found that the most effective treatment for both youths and adults diagnosed with mood disorders is the combination of psychotherapy and medications, psychiatrists have been increasingly providing psychotropic medications without psychotherapy to these populations. At the same time, primary care physicians (PCPs) have become increasingly involved in prescribing psychotropic medications. This study compared the prescribing patterns of PCPs and psychiatrists caring for children with mental illness.

METHODS

Data were extracted from the MarketScan database, which compiles claims from private health insurance plans nationwide. Of 40,639 children who received mental health services during calendar year 2000 (6.33% of all covered children), we identified 5485 who initiated a new episode of treatment. Multiple regression was use to adjust for differences in patient characteristics.

RESULTS

While PCPs were more likely to see young children and psychiatrists saw children with more numerous mental illnesses, there were no significant differences between PCPs and psychiatrists in either the proportion of patients who received psychotropic medication, the frequency of clinical contacts, or the dosages or types of medications prescribed. Patients seen in more actively managed Point of Service plans were more likely to receive medication than those seen in preferred provider or indemnity plans.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found no significant differences between psychiatrists and PCPs in psychotropic prescribing practices. In view of the limited availability of child psychiatrists and the decreased availability of psychotherapy in combination with medications, collaborative care models in which non-physician mental health specialists and PCPs work together may increase the availability of effective mental health services for youths.

Response, remission and relapse in relation to adherence in primary care treatment of depression: a 2-year outcome study

Non-adherence to antidepressant drug treatment is common. In a recent study in depressed primary care patients, we reported a strong relationship between adherence and response after 6 months. With the use of a naturalistic design, the patients in that study were prospectively followed for 2 years. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the patients' long-term outcome and, in particular, to examine the impact of patients' treatment adherence on response, remission and relapse. Of the 1031 patients in the intent-to-treat (ITT) sample, 835 completed the study. After 2 years, the overall remission rate defined as a Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale score of nine or less was 68% in the ITT sample analysed with the last observation carried forward (LOCF) technique, and 75% in observed cases. In total, 34% of the responders experienced at least one relapse. Response rates (LOCF) were significantly higher in adherent compared to non-adherent patients at week 24 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 21.4-32.1], year 1 (95% CI = 12.3-22.2) and year 2 (95% CI = 9.2-19.0). Remission rates (LOCF) were also significantly higher in the group of adherent patients at week 24 (95% CI = 9.6-21.5), year 1 (95% CI = 10.0-21.5) and year 2 (95% CI = 11.0-22.0). No relationship between adherence and relapse rate was observed, although the mean time from response to first sign of relapse was significantly longer in the adherent patients (95% C I= 9-97 days). In conclusion, this 2-year follow-up study showed superior long-term recovery in patients who were adherent to antidepressant medication compared to non-adherent patients.

Closing the antidepressant efficacy gap between clinical trials and real patient populations

Overall, patient outcomes in the primary care of depression are seldom as good as those achieved in clinical trials - the "efficacy gap". Many factors contribute to this, including poor patient compliance, poor family and social support and negative media reporting of antidepressants. Indeed, negative media reporting has had far more impact on physicians' prescribing of antidepressants than have regulatory agencies, partly as a result of changing public attitudes. Negative media reports linking SSRIs to increased child suicide rates have also resulted in a decline in the prescribing of SSRIs to this age group, but with no concomitant increase in the prescribing of fluoxetine, the only antidepressant recommended for the treatment of children. There are also inadequacies in the guidelines available to primary care givers that might contribute to the efficacy gap. Guidelines can be too specific for clinical practice - especially where depression coexists with anxiety disorders - and too passive, resulting in delayed or inadequate intervention. Evidence suggests that many physicians prefer to be more proactive. In the recent AHEAD survey, physicians identified faster resolution of symptoms as the property most desirable for improving antidepressant therapy. There is recent evidence that structured long-term therapy and easily-implemented measurement-based care procedures can improve remission rates and help bridge the efficacy gap. If these can be allied with greater public/media understanding of depression and its treatment, along with improved guidelines, then significant progress can be anticipated in the management of mood disorders.

Physicians' satisfaction with a collaborative disease management program for late-life depression in primary care

OBJECTIVE

This study describes physicians' satisfaction with care for patients with depression before and after the implementation of a primary care-based collaborative care program.

METHOD

Project Improving Mood, Promoting Access to Collaborative Treatment for late-life depression (IMPACT) is a multisite, randomized controlled trial comparing a primary care-based collaborative disease management program for late-life depression with care as usual. A total of 450 primary care physicians at 18 participating clinics participated in a satisfaction survey before and 12 months after IMPACT initiation. The preintervention survey focused on physicians' satisfaction with current mental health resources and ability to provide depression care. The postintervention survey repeated these and added questions about physician's experience with the IMPACT collaborative care model.

RESULTS

Before intervention, about half (54%) of the participating physicians were satisfied with resources to treat patients with depression. After intervention, more than 90% reported the intervention as helpful in treating patients with depression and 82% felt that the intervention improved patients' clinical outcomes. Participating physicians identified proactive patient follow-up and patient education as the most helpful components of the IMPACT model.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians perceived a substantial need for improving depression treatment in primary care. They were very satisfied with the IMPACT collaborative care model for treating depressed older adults and felt that similar care management models would also be helpful for treating other chronic medical illnesses.

Interventions to enhance medication adherence

BACKGROUND

People who are prescribed self-administered medications typically take less than half the prescribed doses. Efforts to assist patients with adherence to medications might improve the benefits of prescribed medications, but also might increase their adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

To update a review summarizing the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to help patients follow prescriptions for medications for medical problems, including mental disorders but not addictions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Computerized searches were updated to September 2004 without language restriction in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), PsycINFO and SOCIOFILE. We also reviewed bibliographies in articles on patient adherence and articles in our personal collections, and contacted authors of original and review articles on the topic.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Articles were selected if they reported an unconfounded RCT of an intervention to improve adherence with prescribed medications, measuring both medication adherence and treatment outcome, with at least 80% follow-up of each group studied and, for long-term treatments, at least six months follow-up for studies with positive initial findings.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Study design features, interventions and controls, and results were extracted by one reviewer and confirmed by at least one other reviewer. We extracted adherence rates and their measures of variance for all methods of measuring adherence in each study, and all outcome rates and their measures of variance for each study group, as well as levels of statistical significance for differences between study groups, consulting authors and verifying or correcting analyses as needed.

MAIN RESULTS

For short-term treatments, four of nine interventions reported in eight RCTs showed an effect on both adherence and at least one clinical outcome, while one intervention reported in one RCT significantly improved patient compliance, but did not enhance the clinical outcome. For long-term treatments, 26 of 58 interventions reported in 49 RCTs were associated with improvements in adherence, but only 18 interventions led to improvement in at least one treatment outcome. Almost all of the interventions that were effective for long-term care were complex, including combinations of more convenient care, information, reminders, self-monitoring, reinforcement, counseling, family therapy, psychological therapy, crisis intervention, manual telephone follow-up, and supportive care. Even the most effective interventions did not lead to large improvements in adherence and treatment outcomes. Six studies showed that telling patients about adverse effects of treatment did not affect their adherence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Improving short-term adherence is relatively successful with a variety of simple interventions. Current methods of improving adherence for chronic health problems are mostly complex and not very effective, so that the full benefits of treatment cannot be realized. High priority should be given to fundamental and applied research concerning innovations to assist patients to follow medication prescriptions for long-term medical disorders.

The Economics of Integrated Depression Care: The University of Michigan Study

A goal of the Robert Wood Johnson Depression and Primary Care Initiative at the University of Michigan is to create and implement the clinical care and financial systems necessary to enable links between primary care and mental health specialty depression care. This paper describes the economic issues related to resources required, the mechanisms to distribute those resources, and the support that must be garnered from stakeholders. By systematic measurement and application, we assess the cost, price and selected consequences of these efforts. The study illustrates the need for both centralized and distributed capacity and support for innovative models of care.

Screening for Major Depression in Epilepsy with Common Self-report Depression Inventories

PURPOSE

Major depression is a common psychiatric comorbidity in chronic epilepsy that is frequently unrecognized and untreated. A variety of self-report mood inventories are available, but their validity as well as ability to detect major depression in epilepsy remains uncertain. The purpose of this study was to determine the ability of two common depressive symptom inventories to identify major depression in people with epilepsy.

METHODS

In total, 174 adult patients with epilepsy underwent standardized psychiatric interview techniques [Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) and Mood Disorders module of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders-Research Version (SCID-I)] to determine the presence of current major depression. Subjects completed two self-report depression inventories [Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), Center for Epidemiological Study of Depression (CES-D)]. The ability of these self-report measures to identify major depression as identified by the gold standard structured interviews was examined by using diagnostic efficiency statistics.

RESULTS

Both the BDI-II and the CES-D exhibited significant ability to identify major depression in epilepsy. All ROC analyses were highly significant (mean area under the curve, 0.92). Mean sensitivity (0.93) and specificity (0.81) were strong, with excellent negative predictive value (0.98) but lower positive predictive value (0.47).

CONCLUSIONS

Common self-report depression measures can be used to screen for major depression in clinical settings. Use of these measures will assist in the clinical identification of patients with major depression so that treatment can be initiated.

Cost-effectiveness of enhancing primary care depression management on an ongoing basis

PURPOSE

Although potentially costly, enhancing primary care depression management on an ongoing basis results in substantial long-term treatment effectiveness. The purpose of this article is to compare the cost-effectiveness of this approach with that of usual care.

METHODS

The study was conducted in 12 community primary care practices randomized to enhanced or usual care after stratification by baseline practice patterns. Practices assigned to enhanced care encouraged depressed patients to engage in active treatment, using practice nurses to provide regularly scheduled care management during the course of 24 months. We analyze outcomes for 211 adults (73.4% of potential eligible patients) beginning a new treatment episode for major depression determined by previsit screening. Outcomes included blinded estimates of days free of depression impairment as well as health care costs for 2 years.

RESULTS

Enhanced care significantly increased the number of days free of depression impairment for 2 years when compared with usual care (647.6 days vs 588.2 days, P <.01). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for enhanced care ranged from 9,592 dollars to 14,306 dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The number of incremental days free of depression impairment increased between the first year and the second year (23.0 vs 36.4, respectively, P <.001) while incremental health plan costs decreased significantly (568 dollars vs -12 dollars, P <.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Enhancing primary care depression management on an ongoing basis should be considered for adoption by policy and health plan leaders.

Evidence of cost-effective treatments for depression: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

High levels of public spending, rising costs of treatments and scarcity of mental health resources have intensified the need for information on the cost-effectiveness of interventions for depression. There have been few reviews that consider the cost-effectiveness of all treatments for depression together.

METHODS

Systematic review of published economic evaluations of interventions for depression to identify where evidence of cost-effectiveness exists and where ambiguity remains.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight papers met the criteria and were included in the review. The quality of the evaluations varied greatly. Evidence establishing the cost-effectiveness of interventions for depression is accumulating; selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and the newer antidepressants venlafaxine, mirtazepine and nefazodone appear cost-effective compared with older drugs. Despite the availability of high quality economic evaluations of psychological therapies compared to usual care, there is limited evidence of their cost-effectiveness particularly when compared directly to pharmacotherapies. Changes to health systems have been found to be cost-effective in some patient groups, but there is no evidence that screening in primary care populations is a cost-effective strategy.

LIMITATIONS

Vastly different interventions, outcome measures and cost perspectives meant a meta-analysis of costs and effects was not considered possible.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of available evidence, it is not possible to identify the most cost-effective strategy for alleviating the symptoms of depression, although the SSRIs and newer antidepressants consistently appear more cost-effective than tricyclic antidepressants in many patient groups. Better quality economic evidence is needed.