Dataset Information

Systematic depression screening in high-risk patients attending primary care: a pragmatic cluster-randomized trial.

ABSTRACT: Systematic screening for depression in high-risk patients is recommended but remains controversial. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of such screening in everyday clinical practice on depression recognition.A pragmatic, cluster randomized, controlled study that randomized primary care physicians (PCPs) in Spain either to an intervention or control group. The intervention group (35-PCPs) received training in depression screening and used depression screening routinely for at least 6 months. The control group (34-PCPs) managed depression in their usual manner. Adherence to (1-6; never-very frequently), feasibility (1-4; unfeasible-very feasible), and acceptance (1-5; very poor-very good) of the screening were evaluated. Underrecognition (primary outcome) and undertreatment rates of major depressive disorder (MDD) in the two groups were compared 6 months after randomization in a random sample of 3737 patients assigned to these PCPs using logistic regression adjusting for the clustering effect.No significant differences were found for recognition rates (58.0% vs. 48.1% intervention vs. control; OR [95%CI] 1.40 [0.73-2.68], p = 0.309). The undertreatment rate did not differ significantly either (p = 0.390). The mean adherence to depression screening was 4.4 ± 1.0 ('occasionally'), the mean feasibility was 3.1 ± 0.5 ('moderately feasible'), and the mean acceptance was 4.2 ± 0.6 ('good').This research was not able to show effectiveness of the systematic screening for MDD in high-risk patients on depression recognition in primary care. The poor adherence to screening implementation could partially explain the results. These reflect the difficulties of putting into practice the clinical guidelines usually based on interventional research.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01662817.

SUBMITTER: Romera I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3602032 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Systematic depression screening in high-risk patients attending primary care: a pragmatic cluster-randomized trial.

Romera Irene I Montejo Ángel L ÁL Aragonés Enric E Arbesú José Ángel JÁ Iglesias-García Celso C López Silvia S Lozano José Antonio JA Pamulapati Sireesha S Yruretagoyena Belen B Gilaberte Inmaculada I

BMC psychiatry 20130313

<h4>Background</h4>Systematic screening for depression in high-risk patients is recommended but remains controversial. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of such screening in everyday clinical practice on depression recognition.<h4>Methods</h4>A pragmatic, cluster randomized, controlled study that randomized primary care physicians (PCPs) in Spain either to an intervention or control group. The intervention group (35-PCPs) received training in depression screening and used dep ...[more]

PMID: 23497463

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrimary care provides most of the evidence-based chronic disease prevention and screening services offered by the healthcare system. However, there remains a gap between recommended preventive services and actual practice. This trial (the BETTER Trial) aimed to improve preventive care of heart disease, diabetes, colorectal, breast and cervical cancers, and relevant lifestyle factors through a practice facilitation intervention set in primary care.MethodsPragmatic two-way factorial cluster RCT with Primary Care Physicians' practices as the unit of allocation and individual patients as the unit of analysis. The setting was urban Primary Care Team practices in two Canadian provinces. Eight Primary Care Team practices were randomly assigned to receive the practice-level intervention or wait-list control; 4 physicians in each team (32 physicians) were randomly assigned to receive the patient-level intervention or wait-list control. Patients randomly selected from physicians' rosters were stratified into two groups: 1) general and 2) moderate mental illness. The interventions involved a multifaceted, evidence-based, tailored practice-level intervention with a Practice Facilitator, and a patient-level intervention involving a one-hour visit with a Prevention Practitioner where patients received a tailored 'prevention prescription'. The primary outcome was a composite Summary Quality Index of 28 evidence-based chronic disease prevention and screening actions with pre-defined targets, expressed as the ratio of eligible actions at baseline that were met at follow-up. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted.Results789 of 1,260 (63%) eligible patients participated. On average, patients were eligible for 8.96 (SD 3.2) actions at baseline. In the adjusted analysis, control patients met 23.1% (95% CI: 19.2% to 27.1%) of target actions, compared to 28.5% (95% CI: 20.9% to 36.0%) receiving the practice-level intervention, 55.6% (95% CI: 49.0% to 62.1%) receiving the patient-level intervention, and 58.9% (95% CI: 54.7% to 63.1%) receiving both practice- and patient-level interventions (patient-level intervention versus control, P < 0.001). The benefit of the patient-level intervention was seen in both strata. The extra cost of the intervention was $26.43CAN (95% CI: $16 to $44) per additional action met.ConclusionsA Prevention Practitioner can improve the implementation of clinically important prevention and screening for chronic diseases in a cost-effective manner.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Depression is one of the leading causes of disability and affects 10-15% of the population. The majority of people with depressive symptoms seek care and are treated in primary care. Evidence internationally for high quality care supports collaborative care with a care manager. Our aim was to study clinical effectiveness of a care manager intervention in management of primary care patients with depression in Sweden. METHODS:In a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial 23 primary care centers (PCCs), urban and rural, included patients aged ??18 years with a new (<?1 month) depression diagnosis. Intervention consisted of Care management including continuous contact between care manager and patient, a structured management plan, and behavioral activation, altogether around 6-7 contacts over 12 weeks. Control condition was care as usual (CAU). OUTCOME MEASURES:Depression symptoms (measured by Mongomery-Asberg depression score-self (MADRS-S) and BDI-II), quality of life (QoL) (EQ-5D), return to work and sick leave, service satisfaction, and antidepressant medication. Data were analyzed with the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS:One hundred ninety two patients with depression at PCCs with care managers were allocated to the intervention group, and 184 patients at control PCCs were allocated to the control group. Mean depression score measured by MADRS-S was 2.17 lower in the intervention vs. the control group (95% CI [0.56; 3.79], p?=?0.009) at 3 months and 2.27 lower (95% CI [0.59; 3.95], p?=?0.008) at 6 months; corresponding BDI-II scores were 1.96 lower (95% CI [-?0.19; 4.11], p?=?0.07) in the intervention vs. control group at 6 months. Remission was significantly higher in the intervention group at 6 months (61% vs. 47%, p?=?0.006). QoL showed a steeper increase in the intervention group at 3 months (p?=?0.01). During the first 3 months, return to work was significantly higher in the intervention vs. the control group. Patients in the intervention group were more consistently on antidepressant medication than patients in the control group. CONCLUSIONS:Care managers for depression treatment have positive effects on depression course, return to work, remission frequency, antidepressant frequency, and quality of life compared to usual care and is valued by the patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Identifier: NCT02378272 . February 2, 2015. Retrospectively registered.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of different brief intervention strategies at reducing hazardous or harmful drinking in primary care. The hypothesis was that more intensive intervention would result in a greater reduction in hazardous or harmful drinking.DesignPragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.SettingPrimary care practices in the north east and south east of England and in London.Participants3562 patients aged 18 or more routinely presenting in primary care, of whom 2991 (84.0%) were eligible to enter the trial: 900 (30.1%) screened positive for hazardous or harmful drinking and 756 (84.0%) received a brief intervention. The sample was predominantly male (62%) and white (92%), and 34% were current smokers.InterventionsPractices were randomised to three interventions, each of which built on the previous one: a patient information leaflet control group, five minutes of structured brief advice, and 20 minutes of brief lifestyle counselling. Delivery of the patient leaflet and brief advice occurred directly after screening and brief lifestyle counselling in a subsequent consultation.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was patients' self reported hazardous or harmful drinking status as measured by the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) at six months. A negative AUDIT result (score <8) indicated non-hazardous or non-harmful drinking. Secondary outcomes were a negative AUDIT result at 12 months, experience of alcohol related problems (alcohol problems questionnaire), health utility (EQ-5D), service utilisation, and patients' motivation to change drinking behaviour (readiness to change) as measured by a modified readiness ruler.ResultsPatient follow-up rates were 83% at six months (n=644) and 79% at 12 months (n=617). At both time points an intention to treat analysis found no significant differences in AUDIT negative status between the three interventions. Compared with the patient information leaflet group, the odds ratio of having a negative AUDIT result for brief advice was 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.52 to 1.39) and for brief lifestyle counselling was 0.78 (0.48 to 1.25). A per protocol analysis confirmed these findings.ConclusionsAll patients received simple feedback on their screening outcome. Beyond this input, however, evidence that brief advice or brief lifestyle counselling provided important additional benefit in reducing hazardous or harmful drinking compared with the patient information leaflet was lacking.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN06145674.

Project description:BackgroundEfforts to improve primary care diabetes management have assessed strategies across heterogeneous groups of patients and practices. However, there is substantial variability in how well practices implement interventions and achieve desired outcomes.ObjectiveTo examine practice contextual features that moderate intervention effectiveness.DesignSecondary analysis of data from a cluster randomized trial of three approaches for implementing the Chronic Care Model to improve diabetes care.ParticipantsForty small to mid-sized primary care practices participated, with 522 clinician and staff member surveys. Outcomes were assessed for 822 established patients with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes who had at least one visit to the practice in the 18 months following enrollment.Main measuresThe primary outcome was a composite measure of diabetes process of care, ascertained by chart audit, regarding nine quality measures from the American Diabetes Association Physician Recognition Program: HgA1c, foot exam, blood pressure, dilated eye exam, cholesterol, nephropathy screen, flu shot, nutrition counseling, and self-management support. Data from practices included structural and demographic characteristics and Practice Culture Assessment survey subscales (Change Culture, Work Culture, Chaos).Key resultsAcross the three implementation approaches, demographic/structural characteristics (rural vs. urban + .70(p = .006), +2.44(p < .001), -.75(p = .004)); Medicaid: < 20 % vs. ≥ 20 % (-.20(p = .48), +.75 (p = .08), +.60(p = .02)); practice size: < 4 clinicians vs. ≥ 4 clinicians (+.56(p = .02), +1.96(p < .001), +.02(p = .91)); practice Change Culture (high vs. low: -.86(p = .048), +1.71(p = .005), +.34(p = .22)), Work Culture (high vs. low: -.67(p = .18), +2.41(p < .001), +.67(p = .005)) and variability in practice Change Culture (high vs. low: -.24(p = .006), -.20(p = .0771), -.44(p = .0019) and Work Culture (high vs. low: +.56(p = .3160), -1.0(p = .008), -.25 (p = .0216) were associated with trajectories of change in diabetes process of care, either directly or differentially by study arm.ConclusionsThis study supports the need for broader use of methodological approaches to better examine contextual effects on implementation and effectiveness of quality improvement interventions in primary care settings.

Project description:BackgroundMost people with opioid use disorder (OUD) never receive treatment. Medication treatment of OUD in primary care is recommended as an approach to increase access to care. The PRimary Care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial tests whether implementation of a collaborative care model (Massachusetts Model) using a nurse care manager (NCM) to support medication treatment of OUD in primary care increases OUD treatment and improves outcomes. Specifically, it tests whether implementation of collaborative care, compared to usual primary care, increases the number of days of medication for OUD (implementation objective) and reduces acute health care utilization (effectiveness objective). The protocol for the PROUD trial is presented here.MethodsPROUD is a hybrid type III cluster-randomized implementation trial in six health care systems. The intervention consists of three implementation strategies: salary for a full-time NCM, training and technical assistance for the NCM, and requiring that three primary care providers have DEA waivers to prescribe buprenorphine. Within each health system, two primary care clinics are randomized: one to the intervention and one to Usual Primary Care. The sample includes all patients age 16-90 who visited the randomized primary care clinics from 3 years before to 2 years after randomization (anticipated to be > 170,000). Quantitative data are derived from existing health system administrative data, electronic medical records, and/or health insurance claims ("electronic health records," [EHRs]). Anonymous staff surveys, stakeholder debriefs, and observations from site visits, trainings and technical assistance provide qualitative data to assess barriers and facilitators to implementation. The outcome for the implementation objective (primary outcome) is a clinic-level measure of the number of patient days of medication treatment of OUD over the 2 years post-randomization. The patient-level outcome for the effectiveness objective (secondary outcome) is days of acute care utilization [e.g. urgent care, emergency department (ED) and/or hospitalizations] over 2 years post-randomization among patients with documented OUD prior to randomization.DiscussionThe PROUD trial provides information for clinical leaders and policy makers regarding potential benefits for patients and health systems of a collaborative care model for management of OUD in primary care, tested in real-world diverse primary care settings. Trial registration # NCT03407638 (February 28, 2018); CTN-0074 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03407638?term=CTN-0074&draw=2&rank=1.

Project description:BackgroundIndividuals with dementia or mild cognitive impairment frequently have multiple chronic conditions (defined as ≥2 chronic medical conditions) and take multiple medications, increasing their risk for adverse outcomes. Deprescribing (reducing or stopping medications for which potential harms outweigh potential benefits) may decrease their risk of adverse outcomes.ObjectiveTo examine the effectiveness of increasing patient and clinician awareness about the potential to deprescribe unnecessary or risky medications among patients with dementia or mild cognitive impairment.Design, setting, and participantsThis pragmatic, patient-centered, 12-month cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020, at 18 primary care clinics in a not-for-profit integrated health care delivery system. The study included 3012 adults aged 65 years or older with dementia or mild cognitive impairment who had 1 or more additional chronic medical conditions and were taking 5 or more long-term medications.InterventionsAn educational brochure and a questionnaire on attitudes toward deprescribing were mailed to patients prior to a primary care visit, clinicians were notified about the mailing, and deprescribing tip sheets were distributed to clinicians at monthly clinic meetings.Main outcomes and measuresThe number of prescribed long-term medications and the percentage of individuals prescribed 1 or more potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis.ResultsThis study comprised 1433 individuals (806 women [56.2%]; mean [SD] age, 80.1 [7.2] years) in 9 intervention clinics and 1579 individuals (874 women [55.4%]; mean [SD] age, 79.9 [7.5] years) in 9 control clinics who met the eligibility criteria. At baseline, both groups were prescribed a similar mean (SD) number of long-term medications (7.0 [2.1] in the intervention group and 7.0 [2.2] in the control group), and a similar proportion of individuals in both groups were taking 1 or more PIMs (437 of 1433 individuals [30.5%] in the intervention group and 467 of 1579 individuals [29.6%] in the control group). At 6 months, the adjusted mean number of long-term medications was similar in the intervention and control groups (6.4 [95% CI, 6.3-6.5] vs 6.5 [95% CI, 6.4-6.6]; P = .14). The estimated percentages of patients in the intervention and control groups taking 1 or more PIMs were similar (17.8% [95% CI, 15.4%-20.5%] vs 20.9% [95% CI, 18.4%-23.6%]; P = .08). In preplanned subgroup analyses, adjusted differences between the intervention and control groups were -0.16 (95% CI, -0.34 to 0.01) for individuals prescribed 7 or more long-term medications at baseline (n = 1434) and -0.03 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.13) for those prescribed 5 to 6 medications (n = 1578) (P = .28 for interaction; P = .19 for subgroup interaction for PIMs).Conclusions and relevanceThis large-scale educational deprescribing intervention for older adults with cognitive impairment taking 5 or more long-term medications and their primary care clinicians demonstrated small effect sizes and did not significantly reduce the number of long-term medications and PIMs. Such interventions should target older adults taking relatively more medications.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03984396.

Project description:Background and objectivesWe conducted a pilot, pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial to evaluate feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of screening for CKD using a triple-marker approach (creatinine, cystatin C, and albumin/creatinine ratio), followed by education and guidance, to improve care of hypertensive veterans in primary care. We used the electronic health record for identification, enrollment, intervention delivery, and outcome ascertainment.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsWe randomized 1819 veterans without diabetes but with hypertension (41 clusters) into three arms: (1) CKD screening followed by patient and provider education; (2) screening, education, plus pharmacist comanagement; or (3) usual care. The primary clinical outcome was BP change over 1 year. Implementation and process measures included proportion screened; CKD detection rate; and total and new use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and diuretics.ResultsMedian age was 68 years, 55% were white, 1658 (91%) had a prior creatinine measure, but only 172 (9%) had prior urine albumin/creatinine ratio, and 83 (5%) had a prior cystatin C measure. Among those in the intervention, 527 of 1215 (43%) were identified with upcoming appointments to have CKD screening. Of these, 367 (69%) completed testing. Among those tested, 77 (21%) persons had newly diagnosed CKD. After 1 year, change in systolic BP was -1 mm Hg (interquartile range, -11 to 11) in usual care, -2 mm Hg (-11 to 11) in the screen-educate arm, and -2 mm Hg (-13 to 10) in the screen-educate plus pharmacist arm; P=0.49. There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes in intention-to-treat analyses. In as-treated analyses, higher proportions of participants in the intervention arms initiated a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (15% and 12% versus 7% in usual care, P=0.01) or diuretic (9% and 12% versus 4%, P=0.03).ConclusionsThe pragmatic design made identification, enrollment, and intervention delivery highly efficient. The limited ability to identify appointments resulted in inadequate between-arm differences in CKD testing rates to determine whether screening improves clinical outcomes.

Dataset Information

Systematic depression screening in high-risk patients attending primary care: a pragmatic cluster-randomized trial.

Publications

Systematic depression screening in high-risk patients attending primary care: a pragmatic cluster-randomized trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets