Dataset Information

Collaborative Care for Depression of Adults and Adolescents: Measuring the Effectiveness of Screening and Treatment Uptake.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This study analyzed effectiveness of screening, referrals, and treatment uptake of a collaborative care for depression intervention across 10 primary care clinics in Chicago.

Methods

Between November 2016 and December 2017, patients (N=25,369) were screened with the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 on the basis of an eligibility algorithm. Electronic health record data were analyzed for sample characteristics, screening rates, referrals, and treatment pathways. To identify disparities, a test of proportions was conducted between eligible and screened patients as well as referred and treated patients.

Results

Screenings, referrals, and uptake occurred proportionately across subgroups except for patients ages 12-17. Adolescent age was associated with disproportionate Patient Health Questionnaire-9 screenings and with treatment disengagement.

Conclusions

The intervention shows promise in expanding access to care and reducing disparities. Greater access to psychotherapies and innovative treatment modalities, particularly for adolescents, may improve overall treatment uptake.

SUBMITTER: Thompson H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6602801 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Collaborative Care for Depression of Adults and Adolescents: Measuring the Effectiveness of Screening and Treatment Uptake.

Thompson Hale H Faig Walter W Gupta Neha N Lahey Rebecca R Golden Robyn R Pollack Mark M Karnik Niranjan N

Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) 20190426 7

<h4>Objective</h4>This study analyzed effectiveness of screening, referrals, and treatment uptake of a collaborative care for depression intervention across 10 primary care clinics in Chicago.<h4>Methods</h4>Between November 2016 and December 2017, patients (N=25,369) were screened with the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 on the basis of an eligibility algorithm. Electronic health record data were analyzed for sample characteristics, screening rates, referra ...[more]

PMID: 31023189

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceUp to 20% of adolescents experience an episode of major depression by age 18 years yet few receive evidence-based treatments for their depression.ObjectiveTo determine whether a collaborative care intervention for adolescents with depression improves depressive outcomes compared with usual care.DesignRandomized trial with blinded outcome assessment conducted between April 2010 and April 2013.SettingNine primary care clinics in the Group Health system in Washington State.ParticipantsAdolescents (aged 13-17 years) who screened positive for depression (Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item [PHQ-9] score ≥10) on 2 occasions or who screened positive and met criteria for major depression, spoke English, and had telephone access were recruited. Exclusions included alcohol/drug misuse, suicidal plan or recent attempt, bipolar disorder, developmental delay, and seeing a psychiatrist.InterventionsTwelve-month collaborative care intervention including an initial in-person engagement session and regular follow-up by master's-level clinicians. Usual care control youth received depression screening results and could access mental health services through Group Health.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was change in depressive symptoms on a modified version of the Child Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R; score range, 14-94) from baseline to 12 months. Secondary outcomes included change in Columbia Impairment Scale score (CIS), depression response (≥50% decrease on the CDRS-R), and remission (PHQ-9 score <5).ResultsIntervention youth (n = 50), compared with those randomized to receive usual care (n = 51), had greater decreases in CDRS-R scores such that by 12 months intervention youth had a mean score of 27.5 (95% CI, 23.8-31.1) compared with 34.6 (95% CI, 30.6-38.6) in control youth (overall intervention effect: F2,747.3 = 7.24, P < .001). Both intervention and control youth experienced improvement on the CIS with no significant differences between groups. At 12 months, intervention youth were more likely than control youth to achieve depression response (67.6% vs 38.6%, OR = 3.3, 95% CI, 1.4-8.2; P = .009) and remission (50.4% vs 20.7%, OR = 3.9, 95% CI, 1.5-10.6; P = .007).Conclusions and relevanceAmong adolescents with depression seen in primary care, a collaborative care intervention resulted in greater improvement in depressive symptoms at 12 months than usual care. These findings suggest that mental health services for adolescents with depression can be integrated into primary care.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01140464.

Project description:BackgroundDespite evidence on efficacious interventions, a great proportion of depressed adolescents do not receive evidence-based treatment and have no access to specialized mental health care. Remote collaborative depression care (RCDC) may help to reduce the gap between needs and specialized mental health services.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of an RCDC intervention for adolescents with major depressive disorder (MDD) living in the Araucanía Region, Chile.MethodsA cluster randomized, assessor-blind trial was carried out at 16 primary care centers in the Araucanía Region, Chile. Before randomization, all participating primary care teams were trained in clinical guidelines for the treatment of adolescent depression. Adolescents (N=143; 13-19 years) with MDD were recruited. The intervention group (RCDC, N=65) received a 3-month RCDC treatment that included continuous remote supervision by psychiatrists located in Santiago, Chile's capital city, through shared electronic health records (SEHR) and phone patient monitoring. The control group (enhanced usual care or EUC; N=78) received EUC by clinicians who were encouraged to follow clinical guidelines. Recruitment and response rates and the use of the SEHR system were registered; patient adherence and satisfaction with the treatment and clinician satisfaction with RCDC were assessed at 12-week follow-up; and depressive symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were evaluated at baseline and 12-weeks follow-up.ResultsMore than 60.3% (143/237) of the original estimated sample size was recruited, and a response rate of 90.9% (130/143) was achieved at 12-week follow-up. A mean (SD) of 3.5 (4.0) messages per patient were written on the SEHR system by primary care teams. A third of the patients showed an optimal adherence to psychopharmacological treatment, and adolescents in the RCDC intervention group were more satisfied with psychological assistance than those in EUC group. Primary care clinicians were satisfied with the RCDC intervention, valuing its usefulness. There were no significant differences in depressive symptoms or HRQoL between groups. Satisfaction with psychological care, in both groups, was related to a significant change in depressive symptomatology at 12-weeks follow-up (beta=-4.3, 95% CI -7.2 to -1.3).ConclusionsThis is the first trial of its kind in Latin America that includes adolescents from vulnerable backgrounds, with an intervention that proved to be feasible and well accepted by both patients and primary care clinicians. Design and implementation issues may explain similar effectiveness across arms. The effectiveness of the intervention seems to be comparable with an already nationwide established treatment program that proved to be highly efficacious under controlled conditions.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01860443; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01860443 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6wafMKlTY).

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.

Dataset Information

Collaborative Care for Depression of Adults and Adolescents: Measuring the Effectiveness of Screening and Treatment Uptake.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Collaborative Care for Depression of Adults and Adolescents: Measuring the Effectiveness of Screening and Treatment Uptake.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets