Treatment selection and treatment initialization in guideline-based stepped and collaborative care for depression.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Heddaeus D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6306173 | biostudies-literature | 2018
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Guidelines recommend stepped and collaborative care models (SCM) for depression. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a complex guideline-based SCM for depressed patients. German primary care units were cluster-randomised into intervention (IG) or control group (CG) (3:1 ratio). Adult routine care patients with PHQ-9 ≥ 5 points could participate and received SCM in IG and treatment as usual (TAU) in CG. Primary outcome was change in PHQ-9 from baseline to 12 months (hypothesis: greater reduction in IG). A linear mixed model was calculated with group as fixed effect and practice as random effect, controlling for baseline PHQ-9 (intention-to-treat). 36 primary care units were randomised to IG and 13 to CG. 36 psychotherapists, 6 psychiatrists and 7 clinics participated in SCM. 737 patients were included (IG: n = 569 vs. CG: n = 168); data were available for 60% (IG) and 64% (CG) after 12 months. IG showed 2.4 points greater reduction [95% confidence interval (CI): -3.4 to -1.5, p < 0.001; Cohen's d = 0.45] (adjusted PHQ-9 mean change). Odds of response [odds ratio: 2.8; 95% CI: 1.6 to 4.7] and remission [odds ratio: 3.2; 95% CI: 1.58 to 6.26] were higher in IG. Guideline-based SCM can improve depression care.
| S-EPMC6010425 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDepression is associated with major patient burden. Its treatment requires complex and collaborative approaches. A stepped care model based on the German National Clinical Practice Guideline "Unipolar Depression" has been shown to be effective. In this study we assess the cost-effectiveness of this guideline based stepped care model versus treatment as usual in depression.MethodsThis prospective cluster-randomized controlled trial included 737 depressive adult patients. Primary care practices were randomized to an intervention (IG) or a control group (CG). The intervention consisted of a four-level stepped care model. The CG received treatment as usual. A cost-utility analysis from the societal perspective with a time horizon of 12 months was performed. We used quality-adjusted life years (QALY) based on the EQ-5D-3L as effect measure. Resource utilization was assessed by patient questionnaires. Missing values were imputed by 'multiple imputation using chained equations' based on predictive mean matching. We calculated adjusted group differences in costs and effects as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. To describe the statistical and decision uncertainty cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were constructed based on net-benefit regressions with bootstrapped standard errors (1000 replications). The complete sample and subgroups based on depression severity were considered.ResultsWe found no statically significant differences in costs and effects between IG and CG. The incremental total societal costs (+€5016; 95%-CI: [-€259;€10,290) and effects (+ 0.008 QALY; 95%-CI: [- 0.030; 0.046]) were higher in the IG in comparison to the CG. Significantly higher costs were found in the IG for outpatient physician services and psychiatrist services in comparison to the CG. Significantly higher total costs and productivity losses in the IG in comparison to the CG were found in the group with severe depression. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the IG in comparison to the CG were unfavourable (complete sample: €627.000/QALY gained; mild depression: dominated; moderately severe depression: €645.154/QALY gained; severe depression: €2082,714/QALY gained) and the probability of cost-effectiveness of the intervention was low, except for the group with moderate depression (ICER: dominance; 70% for willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000/QALY gained).ConclusionsWe found no evidence for cost-effectiveness of the intervention in comparison to treatment as usual.Trial registrationNCT, NCT01731717 . Registered 22 November 2012 - Retrospectively registered.
| S-EPMC7456378 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To present the design of the Bypassing the Blues (BtB) study to examine the impact of a collaborative care strategy for treating depression among patients with cardiac disease. Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery is one of the most common and costly medical procedures performed in the US. Up to half of post-CABG patients report depressive symptoms, and they are more likely to experience poorer health-related quality of life (HRQoL), worse functional status, continued chest pains, and higher risk of cardiovascular morbidity independent of cardiac status, medical comorbidity, and the extent of bypass surgery. METHODS:BtB was designed to enroll 450 post-CABG patients from eight Pittsburgh-area hospitals including: (1) 300 patients who expressed mood symptoms preceding discharge and at 2 weeks post hospitalization (Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) >or=10); and (2) 150 patients who served as nondepressed controls (PHQ-9 <5). Depressed patients were randomized to either an 8-month course of nurse-delivered telephone-based collaborative care supervised by a psychiatrist and primary care expert, or to their physicians' "usual care." The primary hypothesis will test whether the intervention can produce an effect size of >or=0.5 improvement in HRQoL at 8 months post CABG, as measured by the SF-36 Mental Component Summary score. Secondary hypotheses will examine the impact of our intervention on mood symptoms, cardiovascular morbidity, employment, health services utilization, and treatment costs. RESULTS:Not applicable. CONCLUSIONS:This effectiveness trial will provide crucial information on the impact of a widely generalizable evidence-based collaborative care strategy for treating depressed patients with cardiac disease.
| S-EPMC4573662 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Evidence-based practices designed for large urban clinics are not necessarily portable into smaller isolated clinics. Implementing practice-based collaborative care for depression in smaller primary care clinics presents unique challenges because it is often not feasible to employ on-site psychiatrists. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the Telemedicine Enhanced Antidepressant Management (TEAM) study was to evaluate a telemedicine-based collaborative care model adapted for small clinics without on-site psychiatrists. DESIGN: Matched sites were randomized to the intervention or usual care. PARTICIPANTS: Small VA Community-based outpatient clinics with no on-site psychiatrists, but access to telepsychiatrists. In 2003-2004, 395 primary care patients with PHQ9 depression severity scores > or = 12 were enrolled, and followed for 12 months. Patients with serious mental illness and current substance dependence were excluded. MEASURES: Medication adherence, treatment response, remission, health status, health-related quality of life, and treatment satisfaction. RESULTS: The sample comprised mostly elderly, white, males with substantial physical and behavioral health comorbidity. At baseline, subjects had moderate depression severity (Hopkins Symptom Checklist, SCL-20 = 1.8), 3.7 prior depression episodes, and 67% had received prior depression treatment. Multivariate analyses indicated that intervention patients were more likely to be adherent at both 6 (odds ratio [OR] = 2.1, p = .04) and 12 months (OR = 2.7, p = .01). Intervention patients were more likely to respond by 6 months (OR = 2.0, p = .02), and remit by 12 months (OR = 2.4, p = .02). Intervention patients reported larger gains in mental health status and health-related quality of life, and reported higher satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care can be successfully adapted for primary care clinics without on-site psychiatrists using telemedicine technologies.
| S-EPMC2305730 | biostudies-other
Project description:Depression is a widespread and serious disease often accompanied by a high degree of suffering and burden of disease. The lack of integration between different care providers impedes guideline-based treatment. This constitutes substantial challenges for the health care system and also causes considerable direct and indirect costs. To face these challenges, the aim of this project is the implementation and evaluation of a guideline-based stepped care model for depressed patients with six treatment options of varying intensity and setting, including low-intensity treatments using innovative technologies.The study is a randomized controlled intervention trial of a consecutive sample of depressive patients from primary care assessed with a prospective survey at four time-standardized measurement points within one year. A cluster randomization at the level of participating primary care units divides the general practitioners into two groups. In the intervention group patients (n = 660) are treated within the stepped care approach in a multiprofessional network consisting of general practitioners, psychotherapists, psychiatrists and inpatient care facilities, whereas patients in the control condition (n = 200) receive routine care. The main research question concerns the effectiveness of the stepped-care model from baseline to t3 (12 months). Primary outcome is the change in depressive symptoms measured by the PHQ-9; secondary outcomes include response, remission and relapse, functional quality of life (SF-12 and EQ-5D-3 L), other clinical and psychosocial variables, direct and indirect costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Furthermore feasibility and acceptance of the overall model as well as of the separate treatment components are assessed.This stepped care model integrates all primary and secondary health care providers involved in the treatment of depression; it elaborates innovative and evidence-based treatment elements, follows a stratified approach and is implemented in routine care as opposed to standardized conditions. In case of positive results, its sustainable implementation as a collaborative care model may significantly improve the health care situation of depressive patients as well as the interaction and care delivery of different care providers on various levels.This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01731717 (date of registration: 24 June 2013).
| S-EPMC4243822 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aims Depression and anxiety are among the most common mental health conditions treated in primary care. They frequently co-occur and involve recommended treatments that overlap. Evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) shows specific stepped care interventions to be cost-effective in improving symptom remission. However, most RCTs have focused on either depression or anxiety, which limits their generalisability to routine primary care settings. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a collaborative stepped care (CSC) intervention to treat depression and/or anxiety among adults in Australian primary care settings. Method A quasi-decision tree model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a CSC intervention relative to care-as-usual (CAU). The model adapted a CSC intervention described in a previous Dutch RCT to the Australian context. This 8-month, cluster RCT recruited patients with depression and/or anxiety (n = 158) from 30 primary care clinics in the Netherlands. The CSC intervention involved two steps: (1) guided self-help with a nurse at a primary care clinic; and (2) referral to specialised mental healthcare. The cost-effectiveness model adopted a health sector perspective and synthesised data from two main sources: RCT data on intervention pathways, remission probabilities and healthcare service utilisation; and Australia-specific data on demography, epidemiology and unit costs from external sources. Incremental costs and incremental health outcomes were estimated across a 1-year time horizon. Health outcomes were measured as disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) due to remitted cases of depression and/or anxiety. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured in 2019 Australian dollars (A$) per DALY averted. Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of cost-effectiveness findings. Result The CSC intervention had a high probability (99.6%) of being cost-effective relative to CAU. The resulting ICER (A$5207/DALY; 95% uncertainty interval: dominant to 25 345) fell below the willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50 000/DALY. ICERs were robust to changes in model parameters and assumptions. Conclusions This study found that a Dutch CSC intervention, with nurse-delivered guided self-help treatment as a first step, could potentially be cost-effective in treating depression and/or anxiety if transferred to the Australian primary care context. However, adaptations may be required to ensure feasibility and acceptability in the Australian healthcare context. In addition, further evidence is needed to verify the real-world cost-effectiveness of the CSC intervention when implemented in routine practice and to evaluate its effectiveness/cost-effectiveness when compared to other viable stepped care interventions for the treatment of depression and/or anxiety.
| S-EPMC8392705 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:This study examined whether psychiatric case review was associated with depression medication modification in a large implementation program of collaborative care for depression in safety-net primary care clinics. METHODS:Registry data were examined from an implementation of the collaborative care model in Washington State. A total of 14,960 adults from 178 primary care clinics who initiated care between January 1, 2008, and September 30, 2014, and who had a baseline Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) score of 10 or higher were included. Rates of psychiatric case reviews and receipt of new depression medications were extracted from the registry for all patients and for a subset of patients who did not improve by eight weeks of treatment (did not achieve a PHQ-9 score of less than 10 or a reduction in PHQ-9 score of 50% or more, compared with baseline). RESULTS:One-half of patients received a new depression medication. Psychiatric case review in any given month was associated with a doubling of the probability of receiving a new medication in the following month. Among patients who did not improve by eight weeks of treatment, a psychiatric case review during weeks 8-12 was associated with a higher rate of receipt of new medications during weeks 8-16 or weeks 8-20. CONCLUSIONS:In a collaborative care program, psychiatric case review was associated with higher rates of subsequent receipt of a new depression medication. This finding supports the importance of psychiatric case review in reducing clinical inertia in collaborative care treatment of depression.
| S-EPMC6063310 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCollaborative care for depression is more effective in improving treatment outcomes than primary care physicians' (PCPs) usual care (UC). However, few trials of collaborative care have targeted anxiety.ObjectiveTo examine the impact and 12-month durability of a centralized, telephone-delivered, stepped collaborative care intervention (CC) for treating anxiety disorders across a network of primary care practices.DesignRandomized controlled trial with blinded outcome assessments.ParticipantsA total of 329 patients aged 18-64 referred by their PCPs in response to an electronic medical record (EMR) prompt. They include 250 highly anxious patients randomized to either CC or to UC, and 79 moderately anxious patients who were triaged to a watchful waiting (WW) cohort and later randomized if their conditions clinically deteriorated.InterventionTwelve months of telephone-delivered CC involving non-mental health professionals who provided patients with basic psycho-education, assessed preferences for guideline-based pharmacotherapy, monitored treatment responses, and informed PCPs of their patients' care preferences and progress via the EMR.Main measuresMental health-related quality of life ([HRQoL]; SF-36 MCS); secondary outcomes: anxiety (Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale [SIGH-A], Panic Disorder Severity Scale) and mood (PHQ-9).Key resultsAt 12-month follow-up, highly anxious patients randomized to CC reported improved mental HRQoL (effect size [ES]: 0.38 [95 % CI: 0.13-0.63]; P = 0.003), anxiety (SIGH-A ES: 0.30 [0.05-0.55]; P = 0.02), and mood (ES: 0.45 [0.19-0.71] P = 0.001) versus UC. These improvements were sustained for 12 months among African-Americans (ES: 0.70-1.14) and men (ES: 0.43-0.93). Of the 79 WW patients, 29 % met severity criteria for randomization, and regardless of treatment assignment, WW patients reported fewer anxiety and mood symptoms and better mental HRQoL over the full 24-month follow-up period than highly anxious patients who were randomized at baseline.ConclusionsTelephone-delivered, centralized, stepped CC improves mental HRQoL, anxiety and mood symptoms. These improvements were durable and particularly evident among those most anxious at baseline, and among African-Americans and men.
| S-EPMC5330997 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:This study evaluated a large demonstration project of collaborative care of depression at community health centers by examining the role of clinic site on two measures of quality care (early follow-up and appropriate pharmacotherapy) and on improvement of symptoms (score on Patient Health Questionnaire-9 reduced by 50% or ? 5). METHODS:A quasi-experimental study examined data on the treatment of 2,821 patients aged 18 and older with depression symptoms between 2006 and 2009 at six community health organizations selected in a competitive process to implement a model of collaborative care. The model's key elements were use of a Web-based disease registry to track patients, care management to support primary care providers and offer proactive follow-up of patients, and organized psychiatric consultation. RESULTS:Across all sites, a plurality of patients achieved meaningful improvement in depression, and in many sites, improvement occurred rapidly. After adjustment for patient characteristics, multivariate logistic regression models revealed significant differences across clinics in the probability of receiving early follow-up (range .34-.88) or appropriate pharmacotherapy (range .27-.69) and in experiencing improvement (.36 to .84). Similarly, after adjustment for patient characteristics, Cox proportional hazards models revealed that time elapsed between first evaluation and the occurrence of improvement differed significantly across clinics (p<.001). CONCLUSIONS:Despite receiving similar training and resources, organizations exhibited substantial variability in enacting change in clinical care systems, as evidenced by both quality indicators and outcomes. Sites that performed better on quality indicators had better outcomes, and the differences were not attributable to patients' characteristics.
| S-EPMC3250309 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe stepped-care pathway (SCP) model has previously been found to be clinically effective for depressive disorder in some studies, but not all. Several groups have suggested that a stepped-care approach is the most appropriate in primary care. There is relatively little information, however, regarding which specific stepped-care pathway may be best. This analysis aimed to determine cost-effectiveness of a stepped-care pathway for depression in adults in primary care versus standard care (SC), treatment-as-usual (TAU), and online cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT).MethodsWe conducted a randomized trial with 1400 participants and 12-week follow-up to assess the impact of the four treatment options on health-related quality of life and depression severity. Costs for the groups were calculated on the basis of physician, outpatient, and inpatient services using administrative data. We then calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios using this information. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and incremental cost-effectiveness scatterplots were created using Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 replications. A subgroup analysis was conducted for participants who screened as depressed at baseline.ResultsFor all participants, TAU was the most expensive followed by CBT, SC, and SCP. QALYs were highest in SCP, followed by SC, CBT, and TAU. In the depressed subgroup, TAU was still the most expensive, followed by SC, SCP, and CBT, while QALYs were still highest in SCP, followed by SC, CBT, and TAU. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curves suggested that SCP had a higher probability for cost-effectiveness than the other three alternatives in all participants. In the depressed subgroup, CBT was associated with the highest probability of cost-effectiveness for a willingness-to-pay cut-off of less than approximately $50,000, while SCP was the highest at a cut-off higher than $50,000. There is considerable uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness estimates.ConclusionsOur analysis showed that even where there are no clinically significant differences in health outcomes between treatment approaches, there may be economic benefit from implementing the stepped-care model. While more work is required to identify the most clinically effective versions of a stepped-care pathway, our findings suggest that the care pathway may have potential to improve health care system value.Trial registrationNCT01975207 . The trial was prospectively registered on 4 November 2013.
| S-EPMC6683422 | biostudies-literature