Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of standard versus patient-centered collaborative care interventions for depression among African Americans in primary care settings: the BRIDGE Study.

ABSTRACT: To compare the effectiveness of standard and patient-centered, culturally tailored collaborative care (CC) interventions for African American patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) over 12 months of follow-up.Twenty-seven primary care clinicians and 132 African American patients with MDD in urban community-based practices in Maryland and Delaware.Cluster randomized trial with patient-level, intent-to-treat analyses.Patients completed screener and baseline, 6-, 12-, and 18-month interviews to assess depression severity, mental health functioning, health service utilization, and patient ratings of care.Patients in both interventions showed statistically significant improvements over 12 months. Compared with standard, patient-centered CC patients had similar reductions in depression symptom levels (-2.41 points; 95 percent confidence interval (CI), -7.7, 2.9), improvement in mental health functioning scores (+3.0 points; 95 percent CI, -2.2, 8.3), and odds of rating their clinician as participatory (OR, 1.48, 95 percent CI, 0.53, 4.17). Treatment rates increased among standard (OR = 1.8, 95 percent CI 1.0, 3.2), but not patient-centered (OR = 1.0, 95 percent CI 0.6, 1.8) CC patients. However, patient-centered CC patients rated their care manager as more helpful at identifying their concerns (OR, 3.00; 95 percent CI, 1.23, 7.30) and helping them adhere to treatment (OR, 2.60; 95 percent CI, 1.11, 6.08).Patient-centered and standard CC approaches to depression care showed similar improvements in clinical outcomes for African Americans with depression; standard CC resulted in higher rates of treatment, and patient-centered CC resulted in better ratings of care.

SUBMITTER: Cooper LA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3589960 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative effectiveness of standard versus patient-centered collaborative care interventions for depression among African Americans in primary care settings: the BRIDGE Study.

Cooper Lisa A LA Ghods Dinoso Bri K BK Ford Daniel E DE Roter Debra L DL Primm Annelle B AB Larson Susan M SM Gill James M JM Noronha Gary J GJ Shaya Elias K EK Wang Nae-Yuh NY

Health services research 20120620 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To compare the effectiveness of standard and patient-centered, culturally tailored collaborative care (CC) interventions for African American patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) over 12 months of follow-up.<h4>Data sources/study setting</h4>Twenty-seven primary care clinicians and 132 African American patients with MDD in urban community-based practices in Maryland and Delaware.<h4>Study design</h4>Cluster randomized trial with patient-level, intent-to-treat analyses. ...[more]

PMID: 22716199

Similar Datasets

Project description:Several studies document disparities in access to care and quality of care for depression for African Americans. Research suggests that patient attitudes and clinician communication behaviors may contribute to these disparities. Evidence links patient-centered care to improvements in mental health outcomes; therefore, quality improvement interventions that enhance this dimension of care are promising strategies to improve treatment and outcomes of depression among African Americans. This paper describes the design of the BRIDGE (Blacks Receiving Interventions for Depression and Gaining Empowerment) Study. The goal of the study is to compare the effectiveness of two interventions for African-American patients with depression--a standard quality improvement program and a patient-centered quality improvement program. The main hypothesis is that patients in the patient-centered group will have a greater reduction in their depression symptoms, higher rates of depression remission, and greater improvements in mental health functioning at six, twelve, and eighteen months than patients in the standard group. The study also examines patient ratings of care and receipt of guideline-concordant treatment for depression.A total of 36 primary care clinicians and 132 of their African-American patients with major depressive disorder were recruited into a cluster randomized trial. The study uses intent-to-treat analyses to compare the effectiveness of standard quality improvement interventions (academic detailing about depression guidelines for clinicians and disease-oriented care management for their patients) and patient-centered quality improvement interventions (communication skills training to enhance participatory decision-making for clinicians and care management focused on explanatory models, socio-cultural barriers, and treatment preferences for their patients) for improving outcomes over 12 months of follow-up.The BRIDGE Study includes clinicians and African-American patients in under-resourced community-based practices who have not been well-represented in clinical trials to improve depression care. The patient-centered and culturally targeted approach to depression care is a relatively new one that has not been tested in most previous studies. The study will provide evidence about whether patient-centered accommodations improve quality of care and outcomes to a greater extent than standard quality improvement strategies for African Americans with depression.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00243425.

Project description:BackgroundIn a large statewide initiative, New York State implemented collaborative care (CC) from 2012 to 2014 in 32 primary care settings where residents were trained and supported its sustainability through payment reforms implemented in 2015. Twenty-six clinics entered the sustainability phase and six opted out, providing an opportunity to examine factors predicting continued CC participation and fidelity.MethodsWe used descriptive statistics to assess implementation metrics in sustaining vs. opt-out clinics and trends in implementation fidelity 1 and 2 years into the sustainability phase among sustaining clinics. To characterize barriers and facilitators, we conducted 31 semi-structured interviews with psychiatrists, clinic administrators, primary care physicians, and depression care managers (24 at sustaining, 7 at opt-out clinics).ResultsAt the end of the implementation phase, clinics opting to continue the program had significantly higher care manager full-time equivalents (FTEs) and achieved greater clinical improvement rates (46% vs. 7.5%, p = 0.004) than opt-out clinics. At 1 and 2 years into sustainability, the 26 sustaining clinics had steady rates of depression screening, staffing FTEs and treatment titration rates, significantly higher contacts/patient and improvement rates and fewer enrolled patients/FTE. During the sustainability phase, opt-out sites reported lower patient caseloads/FTE, psychiatry and care manager FTEs, and physician/psychiatrist CC involvement compared to sustaining clinics. Key barriers to sustainability noted by respondents included time/resources/personnel (71% of respondents from sustaining clinics vs. 86% from opt-out), patient engagement (67% vs. 43%), and staff/provider engagement (50% vs. 43%). Fewer respondents mentioned early implementation barriers such as leadership support, training, finance, and screening/referral logistics. Facilitators included engaging patients (e.g., warm handoffs) (79% vs. 86%) and staff/providers (71% vs. 100%), and hiring personnel (75% vs. 57%), particularly paraprofessionals for administrative tasks (67% vs. 0%).ConclusionsClinics that saw early clinical improvement and who invested in staffing FTEs were more likely to elect to enter the sustainability phase. Structural rules (e.g., payment reform) both encouraged participation in the sustainability phase and boosted long-term outcomes. While limited to settings with academic affiliations, these results demonstrate that patient and provider engagement and care manager resources are critical factors to ensuring sustainability.

Project description:BackgroundCollaborative care involves active engagement of primary care and hospital physicians in shared care of patients beyond usual discharge summaries. This enhances community-based care and reduces dependence on specialists and hospitals. The model, successfully implemented in chronic care management, may have utility for treatment of depression in cancer. The aim of this systematic review was to identify components, delivery and roles and responsibilities within collaborative interventions for depression in the context of cancer.MethodsMedline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Library and Central Register for Controlled Trials databases were searched to identify studies of randomised controlled trials comparing a treatment intervention that met the definition of collaborative model of depression care with usual care or other control condition. Studies of adult cancer patients with major depression or a non-bipolar depressive disorder published in English between 2005 and January 2018 were included. Cochrane checklist for risk of bias was completed (Study Prospero registration: CRD42018086515).ResultsOf 8 studies identified, none adhered to the definition of 'collaborative care'. Interventions delivered were multi-disciplinary, with care co-ordinated by nurses (n?=?5) or social workers (n?=?2) under the direction of psychiatrists (n?=?7). Care was primarily delivered in cancer centres (n?=?5). Care co-ordinators advised primary care physicians (GPs) of medication changes (n?=?3) but few studies (n?=?2) actively involved GPs in medication prescribing and management.ConclusionsThis review highlighted joint participation of GPs and specialist care physicians in collaborative care depression management is promoted but not achieved in cancer care. Current models reflect hospital-based multi-disciplinary models of care.Protocol registrationThe protocol for this systematic review has been registered with PROSPERO. The registration number is CRD42018086515.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Medical care delivered in hospital-based medicine units requires interprofessional collaborative care (IPCC) to improve quality. However, models such as bedside interprofessional rounds, or encounters that include the team of physician and nurse providers discussing medical care at the patient's bedside, are not well studied. OBJECTIVE: To examine the incidence of and time spent in bedside interprofessional rounds on internal medicine teaching services in one academic medical center. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational descriptive study of internal medicine faculty serving as inpatient medicine attending physicians. Participants completed a daily electronic survey following team rounding sessions to assess rounding characteristics (November 2012-June 2013); variables such as resident level-of-training, attending physician years' of experience, house staff call day and clinic schedule were obtained from administrative data. Descriptive, Kruskal-Wallis, and multivariable logistic regression statistics were used to evaluate the study objectives. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes were: (1) incidence of bedside interprofessional rounds, (2) time spent with patients during bedside interprofessional rounding encounters, and, (3) factors associated with increased occurrence of and time spent with patients during bedside interprofessional rounds. Covariates included resident level-of-training, attending physician years' of experience, census size, and call day. KEY RESULTS: Of 549 rounding sessions, 412 surveys were collected (75 % response) from 25 attending physicians. Bedside interprofessional rounds occurred with 64 % of patients (median 8.0 min/encounter), differing by unit (intermediate care 81 %, general medicine 63 %, non-medicine 57 %, p < 0.001). Factors independently associated with increased occurrence of bedside interprofessional rounds were senior resident (OR 2.67, CI 1.75-4.06, PGY-3/PGY-4 vs. PGY-2), weekdays (OR 1.74, CI 1.13-2.69), team census size ≤ 11 (OR 2.36, CI 1.37-4.06), and attending physicians with ≤ 4 years' experience (OR 2.15, CI 1.31-3.55). Factors independently associated with increased time spent during encounters were attending physicians with ≤ 4 years (OR 2.38, CI 1.44-3.95), 5-15 years of experience (OR 1.82, CI 1.10-3.02), and weekdays (OR 1.71, CI 1.10-2.65). CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight factors associated with increasing or decreasing occurrence and time spent in bedside interprofessional collaborative care delivery. Systematic changes to census size caps, resident scheduling, and attending physician education and staffing may be required to increase the occurrence of interprofessional collaborative care.

Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of standard versus patient-centered collaborative care interventions for depression among African Americans in primary care settings: the BRIDGE Study.

Publications

Comparative effectiveness of standard versus patient-centered collaborative care interventions for depression among African Americans in primary care settings: the BRIDGE Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets