<b>OBJECTIVE: </b>To determine whether evidence-based socioculturally adapted collaborative depression care improves receipt of depression care and depression and diabetes outcomes in low-income Hispanic subjects.<b>RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: </b>This was a randomized controlled trial of 387 diabetic patients (96.5% Hispanic) with clinically significant depression recruited from two public safety-net clinics from August 2005 to July 2007 and followed over 18 months. Intervention (INT group) included problem-solving therapy and/or antidepressant medication based on a stepped-care algorithm; first-line treatment choice; telephone treatment response, adherence, and relapse prevention follow-up over 12 months; plus systems navigation assistance. Enhanced usual care (EUC group) included standard clinic care plus patient receipt of depression educational pamphlets and a community resource list.<b>RESULTS: </b>INT patients had significantly greater depression improvement (> or =50% reduction in Symptom Checklist-20 depression score from baseline; 57, 62, and 62% vs. the EUC group's 36, 42, and 44% at 6, 12, and 18 months, respectively; odds ratio 2.46-2.57; P < 0.001). Mixed-effects linear regression models showed a significant study group-by-time interaction over 18 months in diabetes symptoms; anxiety; Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) emotional, physical, and pain-related functioning; Sheehan disability; financial situation; and number of social stressors (P = 0.04 for disability and SF-12 physical functioning, P < 0.001 for all others) but no study group-by-time interaction in A1C, diabetes complications, self-care management, or BMI.<b>CONCLUSIONS: </b>Socioculturally adapted collaborative depression care improved depression, functional outcomes, and receipt of depression treatment in predominantly Hispanic patients in safety-net clinics.
OBJECTIVE: Poor quality of healthcare contributes to impaired health and excess mortality in individuals with severe mental disorders. The authors tested a population-based medical care management intervention designed to improve primary medical care in community mental health settings. METHOD: A total of 407 subjects with severe mental illness at an urban community mental health center were randomly assigned to either the medical care management intervention or usual care. For individuals in the intervention group, care managers provided communication and advocacy with medical providers, health education, and support in overcoming system-level fragmentation and barriers to primary medical care. RESULTS: At a 12-month follow-up evaluation, the intervention group received an average of 58.7% of recommended preventive services compared with a rate of 21.8% in the usual care group. They also received a significantly higher proportion of evidence-based services for cardiomet-abolic conditions (34.9% versus 27.7%) and were more likely to have a primary care provider (71.2% versus 51.9%). The intervention group showed significant improvement on the SF-36 mental component summary (8.0% [versus a 1.1% decline in the usual care group]) and a nonsignificant improvement on the SF-36 physical component summary. Among subjects with available laboratory data, scores on the Framingham Cardiovascular Risk Index were significantly better in the intervention group (6.9%) than the usual care group (9.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Medical care management was associated with significant improvements in the quality and outcomes of primary care. These findings suggest that care management is a promising approach for improving medical care for patients treated in community mental health settings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)
OBJECTIVE: This study examined whether a collaborative care model for depression would improve clinical and functional outcomes for depressed patients with chronic general medical conditions in primary care practices in Puerto Rico. METHODS: A total of 179 primary care patients with major depression and chronic general medical conditions were randomly assigned to receive collaborative care or usual care. The collaborative care intervention involved enhanced collaboration among physicians, mental health specialists, and care managers paired with depression-specific treatment guidelines, patient education, and follow-up. In usual care, study personnel informed the patient and provider of the diagnosis and encouraged patients to discuss treatment options with their provider. Depression severity was assessed with the Hopkins Symptom Checklist; social functioning was assessed with the 36-item Short Form. RESULTS: Compared with usual care, collaborative care significantly reduced depressive symptoms and improved social functioning in the six months after randomization. Integration of collaborative care in primary care practices considerably increased depressed patients’ use of mental health services. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care significantly improved clinical symptoms and functional status of depressed patients with coexisting chronic general medical conditions receiving treatment for depression in primary care practices in Puerto Rico. These findings highlight the promise of the collaborative care model for strengthening the relationship between mental health and primary care services in Puerto Rico. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)
OBJECTIVES: We examined the feasibility and effectiveness of using culturally sensitive collaborative treatment (CSCT) to improve recognition, engagement, and treatment of depressed Chinese Americans in primary care.
METHODS: Chinese American patients in a primary care setting (n = 4228) were screened for depression. The primary study outcome was treatment engagement rate, and the secondary outcome was treatment response.
RESULTS: Of the study participants, 296 (7%) screened positive for depression, 122 (41%) of whom presented for a psychiatric assessment; 104 (85%) were confirmed with major depressive disorder, and 100 (96%) of these patients were randomized into treatment involving either care management or usual care. Patients in the care management and usual care groups did not differ in terms of their outcomes. CSCT resulted in a nearly 7-fold increase in treatment rate among depressed patients in primary care.
CONCLUSIONS: CSCT is both feasible and effective in improving recognition and treatment engagement of depressed Chinese Americans. Care management may have limited effects on depressed patients treated by psychiatrists, given that these patients tend to have favorable responses in general.
CONTEXT: Pain and depression are the most common physical and psychological symptoms in primary care, respectively. Moreover, they co-occur 30% to 50% of the time and have adverse effects on quality of life, disability, and health care costs. OBJECTIVE: To determine if a combined pharmacological and behavioral intervention improves both depression and pain in primary care patients with musculoskeletal pain and comorbid depression. Design, Setting, and PATIENTS: Randomized controlled trial (Stepped Care for Affective Disorders and Musculoskeletal Pain [SCAMP]) conducted at 6 community-based clinics and 5 Veterans Affairs general medicine clinics in Indianapolis, Indiana. Recruitment occurred from January 2005 to June 2007 and follow-up concluded in June 2008. The 250 patients had low back, hip, or knee pain for 3 months or longer and at least moderate depression severity (Patient Health Questionnaire 9 score ≥10). Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned to the intervention (n=123) or to usual care (n=127). The intervention consisted of 12 weeks of optimized antidepressant therapy (step 1) followed by 6 sessions of a pain self-management program over 12 weeks (step 2), and a continuation phase of therapy for 6 months (step 3). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Depression (20-item Hopkins Symptom Checklist), pain severity and interference (Brief Pain Inventory), and global improvement in pain at 12 months. RESULTS: At 12 months, 46 of the 123 intervention patients (37.4%) had a 50% or greater reduction in depression severity from baseline compared with 21 of 127 usual care patients (16.5%) (relative risk [RR], 2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-3.2), corresponding to a much lower number of patients with major depression (50 [40.7%] vs 87 [68.5%], respectively; RR, 0.6 [95% CI, 0.4-0.8]). Also, a clinically significant (≥30%) reduction in pain was much more likely in intervention patients (51 intervention patients [41.5%] vs 22 usual care patients [17.3%]; RR, 2.4 [95% CI, 1.6-3.2]), as was global improvement in pain (58 [47.2%] vs 16 [12.6%], respectively; RR, 3.7 [95% CI, 2.3-6.1]). More intervention patients also experienced benefits in terms of the primary outcome, which was a combined improvement in both depression and pain (32 intervention patients [26.0%] vs 10 usual care patients [7.9%]; RR, 3.3 [95% CI, 1.8-5.4]). CONCLUSION: Optimized antidepressant therapy followed by a pain self-management program resulted in substantial improvement in depression as well as moderate reductions in pain severity and disability. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
CONTEXT: Depressive symptoms commonly follow coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and are associated with less positive clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of telephone-delivered collaborative care for post- CABG depression vs usual physician care. Design, Setting, and Participants: Single-blind effectiveness trial at 7 university-based and community hospitals in or near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Participants were 302 post-CABG patients with depression (150, intervention; 152, usual care) and a comparison group of 151 randomly sampled post-CABG patients without depression recruited between March 2004 and September 2007 and observed as outpatients until June 2008. Intervention: Eight months of telephone-delivered collaborative care provided by nurses working with patients’ primary care physicians and supervised by a psychiatrist and primary care physician from this study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mental health–related quality of life (HRQL) measured by the Short Form-36 Mental Component Summary (SF-36 MCS) at 8-month follow-up; secondary outcome measures included assessment of mood symptoms (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HRS-D]), physical HRQL (SF-36 PCS), and functional status (Duke Activity Status Index [DASI]); and hospital readmissions. RESULTS: The intervention patients reported greater improvements in mental HRQL (all P≤.02) (SF-36 MCS: Δ, 3.2 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5-6.0), physical functioning (DASI: Δ, 4.6 points; 95% CI, 1.9-7.3), and mood symptoms (HRS-D: Δ, 3.1 points; 95% CI, 1.3-4.9); and were more likely to report a 50% or greater decline in HRS-D score from baseline (50.0% vs 29.6%; number needed to treat, 4.9 [95% CI, 3.2-10.4]) than usual care patients (P<.001). Men with depression were particularly likely to benefit from the intervention (SF-36 MCS: Δ, 5.7 points; 95% CI, 2.2-9.2; P=.001). However, the mean HRQL and physical functioning of intervention patients did not reach that of the nondepressed comparison group. CONCLUSION: Compared with usual care, telephone-delivered collaborative care for treatment of post-CABG depression resulted in improved HRQL, physical functioning, and mood symptoms at 8-month follow-up. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)
