Clinical effectiveness of care managers in collaborative care for patients with depression in Swedish primary health care: a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bjorkelund C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5807835 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Clinical effectiveness of care managers in collaborative care for patients with depression in Swedish primary health care: a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.
Björkelund Cecilia C Svenningsson Irene I Hange Dominique D Udo Camilla C Petersson Eva-Lisa EL Ariai Nashmil N Nejati Shabnam S Wessman Catrin C Wikberg Carl C André Malin M Wallin Lars L Westman Jeanette J
BMC family practice 20180209 1
<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>In a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled t ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe collaborative care model with a care manager has previously generated beneficial results for patients with depression in terms of decreased burden of depression symptoms. A care manager function has been tested in Sweden in the PRIM-CARE RCT with successful results. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the process of implementing care managers in collaborative care for patients with depression in Swedish primary health care in the PRIM-CARE RCT.MethodsThe study followed UK Medical Research Council guidance for process evaluation. Field notes from the implementation of the PRIM - CARE RCT were used, as well as data collected from five focus group discussions with General Practitioners (n = 29) and three focus group discussions with care managers (n = 11). Data were analysed with content analysis.ResultsTraining sessions, careful preparation and extensive initial support to the care manager and staff at the Primary Care Centres were important ingredients in the implementation. The close access to facilitators, the recurrent peer support meetings, and the weekly newsletter strengthened the care manager function.ConclusionsA complex intervention adapted to the Swedish primary care context focusing on a care manager function for patients with depression could be performed through a stepwise implementation process. Financial support from the health care regions included in the study helped to reduce the impact of identified barriers. This process evaluation has revealed new and important knowledge for primary care development concerning infrastructure and organization building, knowledge sharing, and facilitating factors and barriers.Trial registrationNCT02378272 Care Manager - Coordinating Care for Person Centered Management of Depression in Primary Care (PRIM - CARE). Registered March 4 2015. Retrospectively registered.
| S-EPMC6660943 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a care manager (CM) programme compared with care as usual (CAU) for treatment of depression at primary care centres (PCCs) from a healthcare as well as societal perspective.DesignCost-effectiveness analysis.Setting23 PCCs in two Swedish regions.ParticipantsPatients with depression (n=342).Main outcome measuresA cost-effectiveness analysis was applied on a cluster randomised trial at PCC level where patients with depression had 3 months of contact with a CM (11 intervention PCCs, n=163) or CAU (12 control PCCs, n=179), with follow-up 3 and 6 months. Effectiveness measures were based on the number of depression-free days (DFDs) calculated from the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale-Self and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Results were expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: ∆Cost/∆QALY and ∆Cost/∆DFD. Sampling uncertainty was assessed based on non-parametric bootstrapping.ResultsHealth benefits were higher in intervention group compared with CAU group: QALYs (0.357 vs 0.333, p<0.001) and DFD reduction of depressive symptom score (79.43 vs 60.14, p<0.001). The mean costs per patient for the 6-month period were €368 (healthcare perspective) and €6217 (societal perspective) for the intervention patients and €246 (healthcare perspective) and €7371 (societal perspective) for the control patients (n.s.). The cost per QALY gained was €6773 (healthcare perspective) and from a societal perspective the CM programme was dominant.DiscussionThe CM programme was associated with a gain in QALYs as well as in DFD, while also being cost saving compared with CAU from a societal perspective. This result is of high relevance for decision-makers on a national level, but it must be observed that a CM programme for depression implies increased costs at the primary care level.Trial registration numberNCT02378272; Results.
| S-EPMC6252772 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo study the cost-effectiveness of a care manager organization for patients with mild to moderate depression in Swedish primary care in a 12-month perspective.MethodsCost-effectiveness analysis of the care manager organization compared to care as usual (CAU) in a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial including 192 individuals in the care manager group and 184 in the CAU group. Cost-effectiveness was assessed from a health care and societal perspectives. Costs were assessed in relation to two different health outcome measures: depression free days (DFDs) and quality adjusted life years (QALYs).ResultsAt the 12-month follow-up, patients treated at the intervention Primary Care Centres (PCCs) with a care manager organization had larger health benefits than the group receiving usual care only at control PCCs. Mean QALY per patient was 0.73 (95% CI 0.7; 0.75) in the care manager group compared to 0.70 (95% CI 0.66; 0.73) in the CAU group. Mean DFDs was 203 (95% CI 178; 229) in the care manager group and 155 (95% CI 131; 179) in the CAU group. Further, from a societal perspective, care manager care was associated with a lower cost than care as usual, resulting in a dominant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for both QALYs and DFDs. From a health care perspective care manager care was related to a low cost per QALY (36,500 SEK / €3,379) and DFD (31 SEK/€3).LimitationsA limitation is the fact that QALY data was impaired by insufficient EQ-5D data for some patients.ConclusionsA care manager organization at the PCC to increase quality of care for patients with mild-moderate depression shows high health benefits, with no decay over time, and high cost-effectiveness both from a health care and a societal perspective. Trial registration details: The trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.com ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02378272 ) in 02/02/2015 with the registration number NCT02378272. The first patient was enrolled in 11/20/2014.
| S-EPMC8369323 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo perform an analysis of collaborative care with a care manager implementation in a primary healthcare setting. The study has a twofold aim: (1) to examine clinicians' and directors' perceptions of implementing collaborative care with a care manager for patients with depression at the primary care centre (PCC), and (2) to identify barriers and facilitators that influenced this implementation.DesignA cross-sectional study was performed in 2016-2017 in parallel with a cluster-randomised controlled trial.Setting36 PCCs in south-west Sweden.ParticipantsPCCs' directors and clinicians.OutcomeData regarding the study's aims were collected by two web-based questionnaires (directors, clinicians). Descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis were used for analysis.ResultsAmong the 36 PCCs, 461 (59%) clinicians and 36 (100%) directors participated. Fifty-two per cent of clinicians could cooperate with the care manager without problems. Forty per cent regarded to their knowledge of the care manager assignment as insufficient. Around two-thirds perceived that collaborating with the care manager was part of their duty as PCC staff. Almost 90% of the PCCs' directors considered that the assignment of the care manager was clearly designed, around 70% considered the priority of the implementation to be high and around 90% were positive to the implementation. Facilitators consisted of support from colleagues and directors, cooperative skills and positive attitudes. Barriers were high workload, shortage of staff and extensive requirements and demands from healthcare management.ConclusionsOur study confirms that the care manager puts collaborative care into practice. Facilitators and barriers of the implementation, such as time, information, soft values and attitudes, financial structure need to be considered when implementing care managers at PCCs.
| S-EPMC7228530 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC3541471 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCollaborative care is an effective treatment for the management of depression but evidence on its cost-effectiveness in the UK is lacking.AimsTo assess the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care in a UK primary care setting.MethodsAn economic evaluation alongside a multi-centre cluster randomised controlled trial comparing collaborative care with usual primary care for adults with depression (n = 581). Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated over a 12-month follow-up, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services (i.e. Third Party Payer). Sensitivity analyses are reported, and uncertainty is presented using the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) and the cost-effectiveness plane.ResultsThe collaborative care intervention had a mean cost of £272.50 per participant. Health and social care service use, excluding collaborative care, indicated a similar profile of resource use between collaborative care and usual care participants. Collaborative care offered a mean incremental gain of 0.02 (95% CI: -0.02, 0.06) quality-adjusted life-years over 12 months, at a mean incremental cost of £270.72 (95% CI: -202.98, 886.04), and resulted in an estimated mean cost per QALY of £14,248. Where costs associated with informal care are considered in sensitivity analyses collaborative care is expected to be less costly and more effective, thereby dominating treatment as usual.ConclusionCollaborative care offers health gains at a relatively low cost, and is cost-effective compared with usual care against a decision-maker willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Results here support the commissioning of collaborative care in a UK primary care setting.
| S-EPMC4133193 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Patients with multiple chronic health conditions are often managed in a disjointed fashion in primary care, with annual review clinic appointments offered separately for each condition. This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of the 3D intervention, which was developed to improve the system of care. DESIGN:Economic evaluation conducted alongside a pragmatic cluster-randomised trial. SETTING:General practices in three centres in England and Scotland. PARTICIPANTS:797 adults with three or more chronic conditions were randomised to the 3D intervention, while 749 participants were randomised to receive usual care. INTERVENTION:The 3D approach: comprehensive 6-monthly general practitioner consultations, supported by medication reviews and nurse appointments. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary economic evaluation assessed the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services (PSS). Costs were related to changes in a range of secondary outcomes (QALYs accrued by both participants and carers, and deaths) in a cost-consequences analysis from the perspectives of the NHS/PSS, patients/carers and productivity losses. RESULTS:Very small increases were found in both QALYs (adjusted mean difference 0.007 (-0.009 to 0.023)) and costs (adjusted mean difference £126 (£-739 to £991)) in the intervention arm compared with usual care after 15 months. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £18 499, with a 50.8% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20?000 per QALY (55.8% at £30?000 per QALY). CONCLUSIONS:The small differences in costs and outcomes were consistent with chance, and the uncertainty was substantial; therefore, the evidence for the cost-effectiveness of the 3D approach from the NHS/PSS perspective should be considered equivocal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ISCRTN06180958.
| S-EPMC7044971 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSystematic 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsNo 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').ConclusionsThis 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.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT01662817.
| S-EPMC3602032 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:This study examined the effects of a depression care quality improvement (QI) intervention implemented by using Community Engagement and Planning (CEP), which supports collaboration across health and community-based agencies, or Resources for Services (RS), which provides technical assistance, on training participation and service delivery by primarily unlicensed, racially and ethnically diverse case managers in two low-income communities in Los Angeles. METHODS:The study was a cluster-randomized trial with program-level assignment to CEP or RS for implementation of a QI initiative for providing training for depression care. Staff with patient contact in 84 health and community-based programs that were eligible for the provider outcomes substudy were invited to participate in training and to complete baseline and one-year follow-up surveys; 117 case managers (N=59, RS; N=58, CEP) from 52 programs completed follow-up. Primary outcomes were time spent providing services in community settings and use of depression case management and problem-solving practices. Secondary outcomes were depression knowledge and attitudes and perceived system barriers. RESULTS:CEP case managers had greater participation in depression training, spent more time providing services in community settings, and used more problem-solving therapeutic approaches compared with RS case managers (p<.05). CONCLUSIONS:Training participation, time spent providing services in community settings, and use of problem-solving skills among primarily unlicensed, racially and ethnically diverse case managers were greater in programs that used CEP rather than RS to implement depression care QI, suggesting that CEP offers a model for including case managers in communitywide depression care improvement efforts.
| S-EPMC6320755 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo design a bundled case rate for Collaborative Care for Depression (CCD) that aligns incentives with evidence-based depression care in primary care.Data sourcesA clinical information system used by all care managers in a randomized controlled trial of CCD for older primary care patients.Study designWe conducted an empirical investigation of factors accounting for variation in CCD resource use over time and across patients. CCD resource use at the patient-episode and patient-month levels was measured by number of care manager contacts and direct patient contact time and analyzed with count data (Poisson or negative binomial) models.Principal findingsEpisode-level resource use varies substantially with patient's time in the program. Monthly use declines sharply in the first 6 months regardless of treatment response or remission status, but it remains stable afterwards. An adjusted episode or monthly case rate design better matches payment with variation in resource use compared with a fixed design.ConclusionsOur findings lend support to an episode payment adjusted by number of months receiving CCD and a monthly payment adjusted by the ordinal month. Nonpayment tools including program certification and performance evaluation and reward systems are needed to fully align incentives.
| S-EPMC3168701 | biostudies-literature