Dataset Information

Age differences in treatment response to a collaborative care intervention for anxiety disorders.

ABSTRACT: Some data suggest that older adults with anxiety disorders do not respond as well to treatment as do younger adults.We examined age differences in outcomes from the Coordinated Anxiety Learning and Management (CALM) study, an effectiveness trial comparing usual care to a computer-assisted collaborative care intervention for primary care patients with panic disorder, generalised anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and/or social anxiety disorder. This is the first study to examine the efficacy of a collaborative care intervention in a sample that included both younger and older adults with anxiety disorders. We hypothesised that older adults would show a poorer response to the intervention than younger adults.We examined findings for the overall sample, as well as within each diagnostic category (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00347269).The CALM intervention was more effective than usual care among younger adults overall and for those with generalised anxiety disorder, panic disorder and social anxiety disorder. Among older adults, the intervention was effective overall and for those with social anxiety disorder and PTSD but not for those with panic disorder or generalised anxiety disorder. The effects of the intervention also appeared to erode by the 18-month follow-up, and there were no significant effects on remission among the older adults.These results are consistent with the findings of other investigators suggesting that medications and psychotherapy for anxiety disorders may not be as effective for older individuals as they are for younger people.

SUBMITTER: Wetherell JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3696879 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Age differences in treatment response to a collaborative care intervention for anxiety disorders.

Wetherell Julie Loebach JL Petkus Andrew J AJ Thorp Steven R SR Stein Murray B MB Chavira Denise A DA Campbell-Sills Laura L Craske Michelle G MG Sherbourne Cathy C Bystritsky Alexander A Sullivan Greer G Roy-Byrne Peter P

The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science 20130411 1

<h4>Background</h4>Some data suggest that older adults with anxiety disorders do not respond as well to treatment as do younger adults.<h4>Aims</h4>We examined age differences in outcomes from the Coordinated Anxiety Learning and Management (CALM) study, an effectiveness trial comparing usual care to a computer-assisted collaborative care intervention for primary care patients with panic disorder, generalised anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and/or social anxiety disorder ...[more]

PMID: 23580378

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceCollaborative care for depression and anxiety is superior to usual care from primary care physicians for these conditions; however, challenges limit its provision in routine practice and at scale. Advances in technology may overcome these barriers but have yet to be tested.ObjectiveTo examine the effectiveness of combining an internet support group (ISG) with an online computerized cognitive behavioral therapy (CCBT) provided via a collaborative care program for treating depression and anxiety vs CCBT alone and whether providing CCBT in this manner is more effective than usual care.Design, setting, and participantsIn this 3-arm randomized clinical trial with blinded outcome assessments, primary care physicians from 26 primary care practices in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, referred 2884 patients aged 18 to 75 years in response to an electronic medical record prompt from August 2012 to September 2014. Overall, 704 patients (24.4%) met all eligibility criteria and were randomized to CCBT alone (n = 301), CCBT+ISG (n = 302), or usual care (n = 101). Intent-to-treat analyses were conducted November 2015 to January 2017.InterventionsSix months of guided access to an 8-session CCBT program provided by care managers who informed primary care physicians of their patients' progress and promoted patient engagement with our online programs.Main outcomes and measuresMental health-related quality of life (12-Item Short-Form Health Survey Mental Health Composite Scale) and depression and anxiety symptoms (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) at 6-month follow-up, with treatment durability assessed 6 months later.ResultsOf the 704 randomized patients, 562 patients (79.8%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 42.7 (14.3) years. A total of 604 patients (85.8%) completed our primary 6-month outcome assessment. At 6-month assessment, 254 of 301 patients (84.4%) receiving CCBT alone started the program (mean [SD] sessions completed, 5.4 [2.8]), and 228 of 302 patients (75.5%) in the CCBT+ISG cohort logged into the ISG at least once, of whom 141 (61.8%) provided 1 or more comments or posts (mean, 10.5; median [range], 3 [1-306]). Patients receiving CCBT+ISG reported similar 6-month improvements in mental health-related quality of life, mood, and anxiety symptoms compared with patients receiving CCBT alone. However, compared with patients receiving usual care, patients in the CCBT alone cohort reported significant 6-month effect size improvements in mood (effect size, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-0.53) and anxiety (effect size, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.05-0.48) that persisted 6 months later, and completing more CCBT sessions produced greater effect size improvements in mental health-related quality of life and symptoms.Conclusions and relevanceWhile providing moderated access to an ISG provided no additional benefit over guided CCBT at improving mental health-related quality of life, mood, and anxiety symptoms, guided CCBT alone is more effective than usual care for these conditions.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01482806.

Project description:BackgroundCollaborative care is an evidence-based approach to improving outcomes for common mental disorders in primary care. Efforts are underway to broadly implement the collaborative care model, yet the extent to which this model promotes person-centered mental health care has been little studied. The aim of this study was to describe practices related to two patient and family engagement strategies-personalized care planning and shared decision making-within collaborative care programs for depression and anxiety disorders in primary care.MethodsWe conducted an update of a 2012 Cochrane review, which involved searches in Cochrane CCDAN and CINAHL databases, complemented by additional database, trial registry, and cluster searches. We included programs evaluated in a clinical trials targeting adults or youth diagnosed with depressive or anxiety disorders, as well as sibling reports related to these trials. Pairs of reviewers working independently selected the studies and data extraction for engagement strategies was guided by a codebook. We used narrative synthesis to report on findings.ResultsIn total, 150 collaborative care programs were analyzed. The synthesis showed that personalized care planning or shared decision making were practiced in fewer than half of programs. Practices related to personalized care planning, and to a lesser extent shared decision making, involved multiple members of the collaborative care team, with care managers playing a pivotal role in supporting patient and family engagement. Opportunities for quality improvement were identified, including fostering greater patient involvement in collaborative goal setting and integrating training and decision aids to promote shared decision making.ConclusionThis review suggests that personalized care planning and shared decision making could be more fully integrated within collaborative care programs for depression and anxiety disorders. Their absence in some programs is a missed opportunity to spread person-centered mental health practices in primary care.

Project description:BackgroundMeta-analyses suggest that collaborative care (CC) improves symptoms of depression and anxiety. In CC, a care manager collaborates with a general practitioner (GP) to provide evidence-based care. Most CC research is from the US, focusing on depression. As research results may not transfer to other settings, we developed and tested a Danish CC-model (the Collabri-model) for depression, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and social anxiety disorder in general practice.MethodsFour cluster-randomized superiority trials evaluated the effects of CC. The overall aim was to explore if CC significantly improved depression and anxiety symptoms compared to treatment-as-usual at 6-months' follow-up. The Collabri-model was founded on a multi-professional collaboration between a team of mental-health specialists (psychiatrists and care managers) and GPs. In collaboration with GPs, care managers provided treatment according to a structured plan, including regular reassessments and follow-up. Treatment modalities (cognitive behavioral therapy, psychoeducation, and medication) were offered based on stepped care algorithms. Face-to-face meetings between GPs and care managers took place regularly, and a psychiatrist provided supervision. The control group received treatment-as-usual. Primary outcomes were symptoms of depression (BDI-II) and anxiety (BAI) at 6-months' follow-up. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated based on 6-months' follow-up.ResultsDespite various attempts to improve inclusion rates, the necessary number of participants was not recruited. Seven hundred thirty-one participants were included: 325 in the depression trial and 406 in the anxiety trials. The Collabri-model was implemented, demonstrating good fidelity to core model elements. In favor of CC, we found a statistically significant difference between depression scores at 6-months' follow-up in the depression trial. The difference was not significant at 15-months' follow-up. The anxiety trials were pooled for data analysis due to inadequate sample sizes. At 6- and 15-months' follow-up, there was a difference in anxiety symptoms favoring CC. These differences were not statistically significant. The ICER was 58,280 Euro per QALY.ConclusionsAt 6 months, a significant difference between groups was found in the depression trial, but not in the pooled anxiety trial. However, these results should be cautiously interpreted as there is a risk of selection bias and lacking statistical power.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02678624 and NCT02678845 . Retrospectively registered on 7 February 2016.

Project description:BackgroundCollaborative care (CC) could improve outcomes in primary care patients with common mental conditions. We assessed the effectiveness of a transdiagnostic model of telephone-based CC (tCC) delivered by lay providers to primary care patients with depression, anxiety, or at-risk drinking.MethodsPARTNERS was a pragmatic trial in 502 primary care adults presenting with depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, or at-risk drinking randomized to (1) usual care by primary care providers (PCPs) enhanced with the results of computer-assisted telephone-based assessments (at baseline and 4, 8, and 12 months later) (enhanced usual care [eUC]) or (2) tCC consisting of eUC plus frequent telephone coaching and psychoeducation provided by mental health technicians who also communicated to the PCP recommendations from a psychiatrist for evidence-based pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy, or, when indicated, referrals to mental health services. The primary analysis compared the change on the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) in participants presenting with depression (n = 366) randomized to tCC versus eUC. Secondary analyses compared changes on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 scale (GAD-7) in those presenting with anxiety (n = 298); or change in the number of weekly drinks in those presenting with at-risk drinking (n = 176).ResultsThere were no treatment or time×treatment effects between tCC and eUC on PHQ-9 scores for patients with depression during the 12-month follow-up. However, there was a treatment effect (tCC > eUC) on GAD-7 scores in those with anxiety and a time×treatment interaction effect on the number of weekly drinks (tCC > eUC) in those with at-risk drinking.ConclusionImplementing transdiagnostic tCC for common mental disorders using lay providers appears feasible in Canadian primary care. While tCC was not better than eUC for depression, there were some benefits for those with anxiety or at-risk drinking. Future studies will need to confirm whether tCC differentially benefits patients with depression, anxiety, or at-risk drinking.

Dataset Information

Age differences in treatment response to a collaborative care intervention for anxiety disorders.

Publications

Age differences in treatment response to a collaborative care intervention for anxiety disorders.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets