Dataset Information

A Community-Partnered, Participatory, Cluster-Randomized Study of Depression Care Quality Improvement: Three-Year Outcomes.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:Community Partners in Care, a community-partnered, cluster-randomized trial with depressed clients from 93 Los Angeles health and community programs, examined the added value of a community coalition approach (Community Engagement and Planning [CEP]) versus individual program technical assistance (Resources for Services [RS]) for implementing depression quality improvement in underserved communities. CEP was more effective than RS in improving mental health-related quality of life, reducing behavioral health hospitalizations, and shifting services toward community-based programs at six months. At 12 months, continued evidence of improvement was found. This study examined three-year outcomes. METHODS:Among 1,004 participants with depression who were eligible for three-year follow-up, 600 participants from 89 programs completed surveys. Multiple regression analyses estimated intervention effects on poor mental health-related quality of life and depression, physical health-related quality of life, behavioral health hospital nights, and use of services. RESULTS:At three years, no differences were found in the effects of CEP versus RS on depression or mental health-related quality of life, but CEP had modest effects in improving physical health-related quality of life and reducing behavioral health hospital nights, and CEP participants had more social- and community-sector depression visits and greater use of mood stabilizers. Sensitivity analyses with longitudinal modeling reproduced these findings but found no significant differences between groups in change from baseline to three years. CONCLUSIONS:At three years, CEP and RS did not have differential effects on primary mental health outcomes, but CEP participants had modest improvements in physical health and fewer behavioral health hospital nights.

SUBMITTER: Ong MK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5711579 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Community-Partnered, Participatory, Cluster-Randomized Study of Depression Care Quality Improvement: Three-Year Outcomes.

Ong Michael K MK Jones Loretta L Aoki Wayne W Belin Thomas R TR Bromley Elizabeth E Chung Bowen B Dixon Elizabeth E Johnson Megan Dwight MD Jones Felica F Koegel Paul P Khodyakov Dmitry D Landry Craig M CM Lizaola Elizabeth E Mtume Norma N Ngo Victoria K VK Perlman Judith J Pulido Esmeralda E Sauer Vivian V Sherbourne Cathy D CD Tang Lingqi L Vidaurri Ed E Whittington Yolanda Y Williams Pluscedia P Lucas-Wright Aziza A Zhang Lily L Southard Marvin M Miranda Jeanne J Wells Kenneth K

Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) 20170717 12

<h4>Objective</h4>Community Partners in Care, a community-partnered, cluster-randomized trial with depressed clients from 93 Los Angeles health and community programs, examined the added value of a community coalition approach (Community Engagement and Planning [CEP]) versus individual program technical assistance (Resources for Services [RS]) for implementing depression quality improvement in underserved communities. CEP was more effective than RS in improving mental health-related quality of l ...[more]

PMID: 28712349

Similar Datasets

Project description:Depression collaborative care implementation using community engagement and planning (CEP) across programs improves 6-month client outcomes in minority communities, compared with technical assistance to individual programs (resources for services [RS]). However, 12-month outcomes are unknown.To compare effects of CEP and RS on mental health-related quality of life (MHRQL) and use of services among depressed clients at 12 months.Matched health and community programs (n = 93) in 2 communities randomly assigned to receive CEP or RS. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01699789).Self-reported MHRQL and services use at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months.Los Angeles, California.1018 adults with depressive symptoms (8-item Patient Health Questionnaire score ?10), 88% of whom were an ethnic minority.CEP and RS to implement depression collaborative care.The primary outcome was poor MHRQL (12-item mental health composite score ?40) at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months; the secondary outcome was use of services at 12 months.At 6 months, the finding that CEP outperformed RS to reduce poor MHRQL was significant but sensitive to underlying statistical assumptions. At 12 months, some analyses suggested that CEP was advantageous to MHRQL, whereas others did not confirm a significant difference favoring CEP. The finding that CEP reduced behavioral health hospitalizations at 6 months was less evident at 12 months and was sensitive to underlying statistical assumptions. Other services use did not significantly differ between interventions at 12 months.Data are self-reported, and findings are sensitive to modeling assumptions.In contrast to 6-month results, no consistent effects of CEP on reducing the likelihood of poor MHRQL and behavioral health hospitalizations were found at 12 months. Still, given the needs of underresourced communities, the favorable profile of CEP, and the lack of evidence-based alternatives, CEP remains a viable strategy for policymakers and communities to consider.National Institute of Mental Health, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, California Community Foundation, National Library of Medicine, and National Institutes of Health/National Center for Advancing Translational Science for the UCLA Clinical and Translational Science Institute.

Project description:Collaborative-care management is an evidence-based practice for improving depression outcomes in primary care. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has mandated the implementation of collaborative-care management in its satellite clinics, known as Community Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs). However, the organizational characteristics of CBOCs present added challenges to implementation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI) as a strategy to facilitate the adoption of collaborative-care management in CBOCs.This nonrandomized, small-scale, multisite evaluation of EBQI was conducted at three VA Medical Centers and 11 of their affiliated CBOCs. The Plan phase of the EBQI process involved the localized tailoring of the collaborative-care management program to each CBOC. Researchers ensured that the adaptations were evidence based. Clinical and administrative staff were responsible for adapting the collaborative-care management program for local needs, priorities, preferences and resources. Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles were used to refine the program over time. The evaluation was based on the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) Framework and used data from multiple sources: administrative records, web-based decision-support systems, surveys, and key-informant interviews.Adoption: 69.0% (58/84) of primary care providers referred patients to the program. Reach: 9.0% (298/3,296) of primary care patients diagnosed with depression who were not already receiving specialty care were enrolled in the program. Fidelity: During baseline care manager encounters, education/activation was provided to 100% (298/298) of patients, barriers were assessed and addressed for 100% (298/298) of patients, and depression severity was monitored for 100% (298/298) of patients. Less than half (42.5%, 681/1603) of follow-up encounters during the acute stage were completed within the timeframe specified. During the acute phase of treatment for all trials, the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ9) symptom-monitoring tool was used at 100% (681/681) of completed follow-up encounters, and self-management goals were discussed during 15.3% (104/681) of completed follow-up encounters. During the acute phase of treatment for pharmacotherapy and combination trials, medication adherence was assessed at 99.1% (575/580) of completed follow-up encounters, and side effects were assessed at 92.4% (536/580) of completed follow-up encounters. During the acute phase of treatment for psychotherapy and combination trials, counseling session adherence was assessed at 83.3% (239/287) of completed follow-up encounters. Effectiveness: 18.8% (56/298) of enrolled patients remitted (symptom free) and another 22.1% (66/298) responded to treatment (50% reduction in symptom severity). Maintenance: 91.9% (10/11) of the CBOCs chose to sustain the program after research funds were withdrawn.Provider adoption was good, although reach into the target population was relatively low. Fidelity and maintenance were excellent, and clinical outcomes were comparable to those in randomized controlled trials. Despite the organizational barriers, these findings suggest that EBQI is an effective facilitation strategy for CBOCs.Clinical trial # NCT00317018.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Depression contributes to disability and there are ethnic/racial disparities in access and outcomes of care. Quality improvement (QI) programs for depression in primary care improve outcomes relative to usual care, but health, social and other community-based service sectors also support clients in under-resourced communities. Little is known about effects on client outcomes of strategies to implement depression QI across diverse sectors. OBJECTIVE:To compare the effectiveness of Community Engagement and Planning (CEP) and Resources for Services (RS) to implement depression QI on clients' mental health-related quality of life (HRQL) and services use. DESIGN:Matched programs from health, social and other service sectors were randomized to community engagement and planning (promoting inter-agency collaboration) or resources for services (individual program technical assistance plus outreach) to implement depression QI toolkits in Hollywood-Metro and South Los Angeles. PARTICIPANTS:From 93 randomized programs, 4,440 clients were screened and of 1,322 depressed by the 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8) and providing contact information, 1,246 enrolled and 1,018 in 90 programs completed baseline or 6-month follow-up. MEASURES:Self-reported mental HRQL and probable depression (primary), physical activity, employment, homelessness risk factors (secondary) and services use. RESULTS:CEP was more effective than RS at improving mental HRQL, increasing physical activity and reducing homelessness risk factors, rate of behavioral health hospitalization and medication visits among specialty care users (i.e. psychiatrists, mental health providers) while increasing depression visits among users of primary care/public health for depression and users of faith-based and park programs (each p?<?0.05). Employment, use of antidepressants, and total contacts were not significantly affected (each p?>?0.05). CONCLUSION:Community engagement to build a collaborative approach to implementing depression QI across diverse programs was more effective than resources for services for individual programs in improving mental HRQL, physical activity and homelessness risk factors, and shifted utilization away from hospitalizations and specialty medication visits toward primary care and other sectors, offering an expanded health-home model to address multiple disparities for depressed safety-net clients.

Project description:BackgroundCommunity-based agriculture has been found to decrease food insecurity and alleviate health inequities. Furthermore, it provides a sense of ownership, resources to help integrate new communities, and a space to nurture existing cultural identities for intersectionally diverse gardeners. This sense of belonging in connection with access to growing plots has been linked to psychological well-being and resilience. However, little is known about how the psychosocial benefits of plot ownership affect resilience and which aspects of this resilience are salient.ObjectiveThis community-based participatory research (CBPR) project will examine the role of community gardens in decreasing food insecurity and facilitating various forms of resilience in food-insecure groups in Rochester, Minnesota. Since participation in community gardens nurtures various forms of resilience along individual, group, and community dimensions, our research seeks to understand how dimensions of resilience vary along intersectional lines. In addition to mapping the psychosocial benefits linked to plot ownership, we find that examining which forms of resilience are fostered in community-based agricultural projects addresses an important gap in the academic literature. This can help us propose policy-level practices that reduce health inequities connected to food and nutrition at the local level.MethodsUsing a mixed methods approach, this ongoing community-campus partnership will examine the experiences of current and new plot owners. As a CBPR project, our data collection plan, from design to dissemination, incorporates the intellectual and creative labor of the individuals representing members of the campus community (ie, college students and faculty members engaged in other citizen science projects hosted by the garden), community growers, individuals involved in the community garden's board, and representatives of various organizational bodies. Data collection activities will consist of surveys, in-depth interviews, and photovoice.ResultsThis project was funded in January 2020 and approved by the University of Minnesota's Institutional Review Board in March 2020. For the 2020 growing season, we will conduct evaluative interviews about the effect of COVID-19 on community gardeners, including their experiences during this growing season. For the 2021 growing season, data collection, via pre- and postsurveys, is projected to begin in March 2021 and end in November 2021. We will also conduct in-depth interviews from January to April 2021. Data analysis will commence in April 2021. Photovoice activities (ie, data collection, analysis, synthesis, and dissemination) are expected to take place during the spring and summer of 2021.ConclusionsFindings emerging from this study will provide the preliminary data to foreground community gardening projects and initiatives to improve physical and mental health outcomes in food-insecure communities. Also, the data collected will highlight the role of CBPR methods in disseminating information about the organizational practices of the community garden; this will assist others in planning and implementing similar projects.International registered report identifier (irrid)PRR1-10.2196/21218.

Project description:ObjectiveThe Veterans Health Administration (VHA) conducted a randomized quality improvement evaluation to determine whether augmenting patient-centered medical homes with Primary care Intensive Management (PIM) decreased utilization of acute care and health care costs among patients at high risk for hospitalization. PIM was cost-neutral in the first year; we analyzed changes in utilization and costs in the second year.Data sourcesVHA administrative data for five demonstration sites from August 2013 to March 2019.Data sourcesAdministrative data extracted from VHA's Corporate Data Warehouse.Study designVeterans with a risk of 90-day hospitalization in the top 10th percentile and recent hospitalization or emergency department (ED) visit were randomly assigned to usual primary care vs primary care augmented by PIM. PIM included interdisciplinary teams, comprehensive patient assessment, intensive case management, and care coordination services. We compared the change in mean VHA inpatient and outpatient utilization and costs (including PIM expenses) per patient for the 12-month period before randomization and 13-24 months after randomization for PIM vs usual care using difference-in-differences.Principal findingsBoth PIM patients (n = 1902) and usual care patients (n = 1882) had a mean of 5.6 chronic conditions. PIM patients had a greater number of primary care visits compared to those in usual care (mean 4.6 visits/patient/year vs 3.7 visits/patient/year, p < 0.05), but ED visits (p = 0.45) and hospitalizations (p = 0.95) were not significantly different. We found a small relative increase in outpatient costs among PIM patients compared to those in usual care (mean difference + $928/patient/year, p = 0.053), but no significant differences in mean inpatient costs (+$245/patient/year, p = 0.97). Total mean health care costs were similar between the two groups during the second year (mean difference + $1479/patient/year, p = 0.73).ConclusionsApproaches that target patients solely based on the high risk of hospitalization are unlikely to reduce acute care use or total costs in VHA, which already offers patient-centered medical homes.

Dataset Information

A Community-Partnered, Participatory, Cluster-Randomized Study of Depression Care Quality Improvement: Three-Year Outcomes.

Publications

A Community-Partnered, Participatory, Cluster-Randomized Study of Depression Care Quality Improvement: Three-Year Outcomes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets