Bipolar disorder and PTSD screening and telepsychiatry diagnoses in primary care

Effectiveness of Collaborative Care and Colocated Specialty Care for Bipolar Disorder in Primary Care: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Individuals with bipolar disorder commonly present for treatment in primary care settings. Collaborative care and colocated specialty care models can improve quality of care and outcomes, though it is unknown which model is more effective.

OBJECTIVE

To compare 12-month treatment outcomes for primary care patients with bipolar disorder randomized to treatment with collaborative care or colocated specialty care.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of 191 patients diagnosed with bipolar disorder treated for 12 months during a comparative effectiveness trial in 12 Federally Qualified Health Centers in three states. Characteristics and outcomes were assessed at enrollment and 12 months. The primary outcome was mental health quality of life scores (Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey Mental Health Component Summary), and secondary outcomes included depression and anxiety symptom scores, euthymic mood state, and recovery. T-tests and multiple linear and logistic regression models were used.

RESULTS

Among participants (mean age: 40 years; 73% women), the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey Mental Health Component Summary increased in both arms over 12 months (baseline: collaborative care 21.99, SD 10.78; colocated specialty 24.15, SD 12.05; 12-month collaborative care 30.63, SD 13.33; colocated specialty 34.16, SD 12.65). The mean Mental Health Component Summary change did not differ by arm (collaborative care: MΔ = 9.09; colocated specialty: MΔ = 10.73; t = -0.67, P = 0.50). Secondary outcomes also improved at 12 months compared to baseline measured by the Hopkins Symptoms Checklist (MΔ = -0.75; SD = 0.85), Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (MΔ = -3.92; SD = 6.48), and Recovery Assessment Scale (MΔ = 0.37; SD = 0.65) and did not differ significantly by arm. The proportion of participants with euthymic mood state increased from 11% to 25% with no statistically significant difference by arm.

CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness of collaborative care and that of colocated specialty care were similar. Both were associated with substantial improvements in mental health quality of life and symptom reduction.

Bipolar disorder in primary care: Medication treatment by co-located psychiatrists versus primary care clinicians supported by psychiatrists

OBJECTIVE

To compare medication treatment of individuals with bipolar disorder in two primary care-based integrated care models.

METHODS

Participants were randomized to 12-months of treatment with direct care by co-located psychiatrists in primary care, or collaborative care (primary care clinicians supported by psychiatrists). Medication data at initial and last treatment visits were extracted from the clinical registry for 191 patients diagnosed with bipolar disorder.

RESULTS

Participants receiving no medication treatment decreased from 28% to 11% (direct co-located) (χ2 = 10.9, p < .001) and 39% to 17% (collaborative care; χ2 = 16.9, p < .001). Last visit medication prescriptions for antipsychotic medication (approximately one-half of participants) increased significantly compared to initial visit and did not differ between arms. Anticonvulsant mood-stabilizing medication (approximately one-third of participants in both arms) was higher than lithium prescription (approximately 6% of participants) at last visit.

CONCLUSION

Similar patterns of medication treatment were observed in participants with bipolar disorder receiving either direct care from psychiatrists, or medication treatment by primary care clinicians supported by psychiatrists.

The Patient Mania Questionnaire (PMQ-9): a Brief Scale for Assessing and Monitoring Manic Symptoms

BACKGROUND

Measurement-based care is an effective clinical strategy underutilized for bipolar disorder partly due to lacking a widely adopted patient-reported manic symptom measure.

OBJECTIVE

To report development and psychometric properties of a brief patient-reported manic symptom measure.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of data collected in a randomized effectiveness trial comparing two treatments for 1004 primary care patients screening positive for bipolar disorder and/or PTSD.

PARTICIPANTS

Two analytic samples included 114 participants with varied diagnoses and test-retest data, and 179 participants with psychiatrist-diagnosed bipolar disorder who had two or more assessments with the nine-item Patient Mania Questionnaire-9 [PMQ-9]).

MAIN MEASURES

Internal and test-retest reliability, concurrent validity, and sensitivity to change were assessed. Minimally important difference (MID) was estimated by standard error of measurement (SEM) and by standard deviation (SD) effect sizes.

KEY RESULTS

The PMQ-9 had high internal reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.88) and test-retest reliability (0.85). Concurrent validity correlation with manic symptom measures was high for the Internal State Scale-Activation Subscale (0.70; p<0.0001), and lower for the Altman Mania Rating Scale (0.26; p=0.007). Longitudinally, PMQ-9 was completed at 1511 clinical encounters in 179 patients with bipolar disorder. Mean PMQ-9 score at first and last encounters was 14.5 (SD 6.5) and 10.1 (SD 7.0), a 27% decrease in mean score during treatment, suggesting sensitivity to change. A point estimate of the MID was approximately 3 points (range of 2-4).

CONCLUSIONS

The PMQ-9 demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability, concurrent validity, internal consistency, and sensitivity to change and was widely used and acceptable to patients and clinicians in a pragmatic clinical trial. Combined with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) measure of depressive symptoms this brief measure could inform measurement-based care for individuals with bipolar disorder in primary care and mental health care settings given its ease of administration and familiar self-report response format.

Early Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Experience With the Use of Telehealth to Address Disparities: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Health systems and providers across America are increasingly employing telehealth technologies to better serve medically underserved low-income, minority, and rural populations at the highest risk for health disparities. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) has invested US $386 million in comparative effectiveness research in telehealth, yet little is known about the key early lessons garnered from this research regarding the best practices in using telehealth to address disparities.

OBJECTIVE

This paper describes preliminary lessons from the body of research using study findings and case studies drawn from PCORI seminal patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) initiatives. The primary purpose was to identify common barriers and facilitators to implementing telehealth technologies in populations at risk for disparities.

METHODS

A systematic scoping review of telehealth studies addressing disparities was performed. It was guided by the Arksey and O'Malley Scoping Review Framework and focused on PCORI's active portfolio of telehealth studies and key PCOR identified by study investigators. We drew on this broad literature using illustrative examples from early PCOR experience and published literature to assess barriers and facilitators to implementing telehealth in populations at risk for disparities, using the active implementation framework to extract data. Major themes regarding how telehealth interventions can overcome barriers to telehealth adoption and implementation were identified through this review using an iterative Delphi process to achieve consensus among the PCORI investigators participating in the study.

RESULTS

PCORI has funded 89 comparative effectiveness studies in telehealth, of which 41 assessed the use of telehealth to improve outcomes for populations at risk for health disparities. These 41 studies employed various overlapping modalities including mobile devices (29/41, 71%), web-based interventions (30/41, 73%), real-time videoconferencing (15/41, 37%), remote patient monitoring (8/41, 20%), and store-and-forward (ie, asynchronous electronic transmission) interventions (4/41, 10%). The studies targeted one or more of PCORI's priority populations, including racial and ethnic minorities (31/41, 41%), people living in rural areas, and those with low income/low socioeconomic status, low health literacy, or disabilities. Major themes identified across these studies included the importance of patient-centered design, cultural tailoring of telehealth solutions, delivering telehealth through trusted intermediaries, partnering with payers to expand telehealth reimbursement, and ensuring confidential sharing of private information.

CONCLUSIONS

Early PCOR evidence suggests that the most effective health system- and provider-level telehealth implementation solutions to address disparities employ patient-centered and culturally tailored telehealth solutions whose development is actively guided by the patients themselves to meet the needs of specific communities and populations. Further, this evidence shows that the best practices in telehealth implementation include delivery of telehealth through trusted intermediaries, close partnership with payers to facilitate reimbursement and sustainability, and safeguards to ensure patient-guided confidential sharing of personal health information.

Primary Care Physician Adherence to Telepsychiatry Recommendations: Intermediate Outcomes from a Randomized Clinical Trial

Objective: To compare clinical recommendations given by psychiatrists and the adherence to these recommendations by primary care physicians (PCP) following consultations conducted by asynchronous telepsychiatry (ATP) and synchronous telepsychiatry (STP). Materials and Methods: ATP and STP consultations were compared using intermediate data from a randomized clinical trial with adult participant enrollment between April 2014 and December 2017. In both study arms, PCPs received written recommendations from the psychiatrist after each encounter. Independent clinicians reviewed PCP documentation to measure adherence to those recommendations in the 6 months following the baseline consultation. Results: Medical records were reviewed for 645 psychiatrists' consult recommendations; 344 from 61 ATP consultations and 301 from 62 STP consultations. Of those recommendations, 191 (56%) and 173 (58%) were rated fully adherent by two independent raters for ATP and STP, respectively. In a multilevel ordinal logistic regression model adjusted for recommendation type and recommended implementation timing, there was no statistically significant difference in adherence to recommendations for ATP compared with STP (adjusted odds ratio = 0.91, 95% confidence interval = 0.51-1.62). The profiles of recommendation type were comparable between ATP and STP. Conclusions: This is the first PCP adherence study comparing two forms of telemedicine. Although we did not find evidence of a difference between ATP and STP; this study supports the feasibility and acceptability of ATP and STP for the provision of collaborative psychiatric care. Clinical Trial Identifier NCT02084979.

Comparison of Teleintegrated Care and Telereferral Care for Treating Complex Psychiatric Disorders in Primary Care: A Pragmatic Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial

Importance

Only one-third of patients with complex psychiatric disorders engage in specialty mental health care, and only one-tenth receive adequate treatment in primary care. Scalable approaches are critically needed to improve access to effective mental health treatments in underserved primary care settings.

Objective

To compare 2 clinic-to-clinic interactive video approaches to delivering evidence-based mental health treatments to patients in primary care clinics.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial used a sequential, multiple-assignment, randomized trial (SMART) design with patient-level randomization. Adult patients treated at 24 primary care clinics without on-site psychiatrists or psychologists from 12 federally qualified health centers in 3 states who screened positive for posttraumatic stress disorder and/or bipolar disorder and who were not already receiving pharmacotherapy from a mental health specialist were recruited from November 16, 2016, to June 30, 2019, and observed for 12 months.

Interventions

Two approaches were compared: (1) telepsychiatry/telepsychology-enhanced referral (TER), where telepsychiatrists and telepsychologists assumed responsibility for treatment, and (2) telepsychiatry collaborative care (TCC), where telepsychiatrists provided consultation to the primary care team. TER included an adaptive intervention (phone-enhanced referral [PER]) for patients not engaging in treatment, which involved telephone outreach and motivational interviewing.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Survey questions assessed patient-reported outcomes. The Veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey Mental Component Summary (MCS) score was the primary outcome (range, 0-100). Secondary outcomes included posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, manic symptoms, depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, recovery, and adverse effects.

Results

Of 1004 included participants, 701 of 1000 (70.1%) were female, 660 of 994 (66.4%) were White, and the mean (SD) age was 39.4 (12.9) years. Baseline MCS scores were 2 SDs below the US mean; the mean (SD) MCS scores were 39.7 (14.1) and 41.2 (14.2) in the TCC and TER groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in 12-month MCS score between those receiving TCC and TER (β = 1.0; 95% CI, -0.8 to 2.8; P = .28). Patients in both groups experienced large and clinically meaningful improvements from baseline to 12 months (TCC: Cohen d = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.95; TER: Cohen d = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.04). For patients not engaging in TER at 6 months, there was no significant difference in 12-month MCS score between those receiving PER and TER (β = 2.0; 95% CI, -1.7 to 5.7; P = .29).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this comparative effectiveness trial of patients with complex psychiatric disorders randomized to receive TCC or TER, significantly and substantially improved outcomes were observed in both groups. From a health care system perspective, clinical leadership should implement whichever approach is most sustainable.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02738944.