Dataset Information

Improving Depression Care for Adults With Serious Mental Illness in Underresourced Areas: Community Coalitions Versus Technical Support.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:Community Partners in Care (CPIC) was a group-randomized study of two approaches to implementing expanded collaborative depression care: Community Engagement and Planning (CEP), a coalition approach, and Resources for Services (RS), a technical assistance approach. Collaborative care networks in both arms involved health care and other agencies in five service sectors. This study examined six- and 12-month outcomes for CPIC participants with serious mental illness. METHODS:This secondary analysis focused on low-income CPIC participants from racial-ethnic minority groups with serious mental illness in underresourced Los Angeles communities (N=504). Serious mental illness was defined as self-reported severe depression (?20 on the Patient Health Questionnaire-8) at baseline or a lifetime history of bipolar disorder or psychosis. Logistic and Poisson regression with multiple imputation and response weights, controlling for covariates, was used to model intervention effects. RESULTS:Among CPIC participants, 50% had serious mental illness. Among those with serious mental illness, CEP relative to RS reduced the likelihood of poor mental health-related quality of life (OR=.62, 95% CI=.41-.95) but not depression (primary outcomes); reduced the likelihood of having homelessness risk factors and behavioral health hospitalizations; increased the likelihood of mental wellness; reduced specialty mental health medication and counseling visits; and increased faith-based depression visits (each p<.05) at six months. There were no statistically significant 12-month effects. CONCLUSIONS:Findings suggest that a coalition approach to implementing expanded collaborative depression care, compared with technical assistance to individual programs, may reduce short-term behavioral health hospitalizations and improve mental health-related quality of life and some social outcomes for adults with serious mental illness, although no evidence was found for long-term effects in this subsample.

SUBMITTER: Castillo EG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5794612 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Improving Depression Care for Adults With Serious Mental Illness in Underresourced Areas: Community Coalitions Versus Technical Support.

Castillo Enrico G EG Shaner Roderick R Tang Lingqi L Chung Bowen B Jones Felica F Whittington Yolanda Y Miranda Jeanne J Wells Kenneth B KB

Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) 20171016 2

<h4>Objective</h4>Community Partners in Care (CPIC) was a group-randomized study of two approaches to implementing expanded collaborative depression care: Community Engagement and Planning (CEP), a coalition approach, and Resources for Services (RS), a technical assistance approach. Collaborative care networks in both arms involved health care and other agencies in five service sectors. This study examined six- and 12-month outcomes for CPIC participants with serious mental illness.<h4>Methods</ ...[more]

PMID: 29032700

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPeer support provides the opportunity for peers with experiential knowledge of a mental illness to give emotional, appraisal and informational assistance to current service users, and is becoming an important recovery-oriented approach in healthcare for people with mental illness.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of peer-support interventions for people with schizophrenia or other serious mental disorders, compared to standard care or other supportive or psychosocial interventions not from peers.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials on 27 July 2016 and 4 July 2017. There were no limitations regarding language, date, document type or publication status.Selection criteriaWe selected all randomised controlled clinical studies involving people diagnosed with schizophrenia or other related serious mental illness that compared peer support to standard care or other psychosocial interventions and that did not involve 'peer' individual/group(s). We included studies that met our inclusion criteria and reported useable data. Our primary outcomes were service use and global state (relapse).Data collection and analysisThe authors of this review complied with the Cochrane recommended standard of conduct for data screening and collection. Two review authors independently screened the studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion until the authors reached a consensus. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary data, and the mean difference and its 95% CI for continuous data. We used a random-effects model for analyses. We assessed the quality of evidence and created a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach.Main resultsThis review included 13 studies with 2479 participants. All included studies compared peer support in addition to standard care with standard care alone. We had significant concern regarding risk of bias of included studies as over half had an unclear risk of bias for the majority of the risk domains (i.e. random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, attrition and selective reporting). Additional concerns regarding blinding of participants and outcome assessment, attrition and selective reporting were especially serious, as about a quarter of the included studies were at high risk of bias for these domains.All included studies provided useable data for analyses but only two trials provided useable data for two of our main outcomes of interest, and there were no data for one of our primary outcomes, relapse. Peer support appeared to have little or no effect on hospital admission at medium term (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.75; participants = 19; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence) or all-cause death in the long term (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.31; participants = 555; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). There were no useable data for our other prespecified important outcomes: days in hospital, clinically important change in global state (improvement), clinically important change in quality of life for peer supporter and service user, or increased cost to society.One trial compared peer support with clinician-led support but did not report any useable data for the above main outcomes.Authors' conclusionsCurrently, very limited data are available for the effects of peer support for people with schizophrenia. The risk of bias within trials is of concern and we were unable to use the majority of data reported in the included trials. In addition, the few that were available, were of very low quality. The current body of evidence is insufficient to either refute or support the use of peer-support interventions for people with schizophrenia and other mental illness.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Peer support is recognized globally as an essential recovery service for people with mental health conditions. With the influx of digital mental health services changing the way mental health care is delivered, peer supporters are increasingly using technology to deliver peer support. In light of these technological advances, there is a need to review and synthesize the emergent evidence for peer-supported digital health interventions for adults with mental health conditions. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to identify and review the evidence of digital peer support interventions for people with a lived experience of a serious mental illness. METHODS:This systematic review was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) procedures. The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases were searched for peer-reviewed articles published between 1946 and December 2018 that examined digital peer support interventions for people with a lived experience of a serious mental illness. Additional articles were found by searching the reference lists from the 27 articles that met the inclusion criteria and a Google Scholar search in June 2019. Participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) criteria were used to assess study eligibility. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts, and reviewed all full-text articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Discrepancies were discussed and resolved. All included studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Methodological Quality Rating Scale. RESULTS:A total of 30 studies (11 randomized controlled trials, 2 quasiexperimental, 15 pre-post designs, and 2 qualitative studies) were included that reported on 24 interventions. Most of the studies demonstrated feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of peer-to-peer networks, peer-delivered interventions supported with technology, and use of asynchronous and synchronous technologies. CONCLUSIONS:Digital peer support interventions appear to be feasible and acceptable, with strong potential for clinical effectiveness. However, the field is in the early stages of development and requires well-powered efficacy and clinical effectiveness trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42020139037; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID= 139037.

Project description:BackgroundPeople with a serious mental illness are more likely to smoke more and to be more dependent smokers than the general population. This may be due to a wide range of factors that could include a common aetiology to both smoking and the illness, self medication, smoking to alleviate adverse effects of medications, boredom in the existing environment, or a combination of these factors. It is important to undertake this review to facilitate improvements in both the health and safety of people with serious mental illness who smoke, and to reduce the overall burden of costs (both financial and health) to the smoker and, eventually, to the taxpayer.ObjectivesTo review the effects of smoking cessation advice for people with serious mental illness.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Specialized Trials Register up to 2 April 2015, which is based on regular searches of CENTRAL, BIOSIS, PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and trial registries. We also undertook unsystematic searches of a sample of the component databases (BNI, CINHAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO), up to 2 April 2015, and searched references of all identified studiesSelection criteriaWe planned to include all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that focussed on smoking cessation advice versus standard care or comparing smoking cessation advice with other more focussed methods of delivering care or information.Data collection and analysisThe review authors (PK, AC, and DB) independently screened search results but did not identify any trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria of this review.Main resultsWe did not identify any RCTs that evaluated advice regarding smoking cessation for people with serious mental illness. The excluded studies illustrate that randomisation of packages of care relevant to smokers with serious mental illness is possible.Authors' conclusionsPeople with serious mental illness are more likely to smoke than the general population. Yet we could not find any high quality evidence to guide the smoking cessation advice healthcare professionals pass onto service users. This is an area where trials are possible and needed.

Project description:Significance:Prior research suggests that Community Engagement and Planning (CEP) for coalition support compared with Resources for Services (RS) for program technical assistance to implement depression quality improvement programs improves 6- and 12-month client mental-health related quality of life (MHRQL); however, effects for clients with multiple chronic medical conditions (MCC) are unknown. Objective:To explore effectiveness of CEP vs RS in MCC and non-MCC subgroups. Design:Secondary analyses of a cluster-randomized trial. Setting:93 health care and community-based programs in two neighborhoods. Participants:Of 4,440 clients screened, 1,322 depressed (Patient Health Questionnaire, PHQ8) provided contact information, 1,246 enrolled and 1,018 (548 with ?3 MCC) completed baseline, 6- or 12-month surveys. Intervention:CEP or RS for implementing depression quality improvement programs. Outcomes and Analyses:Primary: depression (PHQ9 <10), poor MHRQL (Short Form Health Survey, SF-12<40); Secondary: mental wellness, good physical health, behavioral health hospitalization, chronic homelessness risk, work/workloss days, services use at 6 and 12 months. End-point regressions were used to estimate intervention effects on outcomes for subgroups with ?3 MCC, non-MCC, and intervention-by-MCC interactions (exploratory). Results:Among MCC clients at 6 months, CEP vs RS lowered likelihoods of depression and poor MHRQL; increased likelihood of mental wellness; reduced work-loss days among employed and likelihoods of ?4 behavioral-health hospitalization nights and chronic homelessness risk, while increasing faith-based and park community center depression services; and at 12 months, likelihood of good physical health and park community center depression services use (each P<.05). There were no significant interactions or primary outcome effects for non-MCC. Conclusions:CEP was more effective than RS in improving 6-month primary outcomes among depressed MCC clients, without significant interactions.

Dataset Information

Improving Depression Care for Adults With Serious Mental Illness in Underresourced Areas: Community Coalitions Versus Technical Support.

Publications

Improving Depression Care for Adults With Serious Mental Illness in Underresourced Areas: Community Coalitions Versus Technical Support.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets