Dataset Information

Implementing collaborative care for older people with comorbid hypertension and depression in rural China.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Depression often coexists with other chronic conditions in older people. The COACH study is an ongoing random controlled trial (RCT) to test the effectiveness of a primary-care-based collaborative care approach to treat co-morbid hypertension and depression in Chinese rural elders. In the COACH model, a team-village doctor (VD), aging worker (AW), and psychiatrist consultant-provides collaborative care to enrolled subjects in each intervention village for 12 months. This study examines how COACH was implemented and identifies facilitators and barriers for its more widespread implementation.

Methods

Five focus groups were conducted, two with VDs, two with AWs, and one with psychiatrists, for a total of 38 participants. Transcripts were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

Results

COACH care-team members showed shared understanding and appreciation of the team approach and integrated management of hypertension and depression. Team collaboration was smooth. All members regarded COACH to be effective in reducing depressive symptoms and improving patient health. Facilitators to implementation include training, leaders' support, geographic proximity between VD and AW pairs, preexisting relationships among care-team members, comparability of COACH activities and existing practices of VDs and AWs, and care team members' caring about older members of their villages. Barriers to sustainability include frustration of some VDs related to their low wages and feelings of overload of some AWs.

Conclusions

COACH was positively perceived and successfully implemented. The findings offer guidance for planning primary-care-based collaborative depression care in low- and middle-income countries.

SUBMITTER: Li LW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7170762 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEffectiveness of integrated care management for common, comorbid physical and mental disorders has been insufficiently examined in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We tested hypotheses that older adults treated in rural Chinese primary care clinics with integrated care management of comorbid depression and hypertension (HTN) would show greater improvements in depression symptom severity and HTN control than those who received usual care.Methods and findingsThe study, registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as Identifier NCT01938963, was a cluster randomized controlled trial with 12-month follow-up conducted from January 1, 2014 through September 30, 2018, with analyses conducted in 2020 to 2021. Participants were residents of 218 rural villages located in 10 randomly selected townships of Zhejiang Province, China. Each village hosts 1 primary care clinic that serves all residents. Ten townships, each containing approximately 20 villages, were randomly selected to deliver either the Chinese Older Adult Collaborations in Health (COACH) intervention or enhanced care-as-usual (eCAU) to eligible village clinic patients. The COACH intervention consisted of algorithm-driven treatment of depression and HTN by village primary care doctors supported by village lay workers with telephone consultation from centrally located psychiatrists. Participants included clinic patients aged ≥60 years with a diagnosis of HTN and clinically significant depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9] score ≥10). Of 2,899 eligible village residents, 2,365 (82%) agreed to participate. They had a mean age of 74.5 years, 67% were women, 55% had no schooling, 59% were married, and 20% lived alone. Observers, older adult participants, and their primary care providers (PCPs) were blinded to study hypotheses but not to group assignment. Primary outcomes were change in depression symptom severity as measured by the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) total score and the proportion with controlled HTN, defined as systolic blood pressure (BP) <130 mm Hg or diastolic BP <80 for participants with diabetes mellitus, coronary heart disease, or renal disease, and systolic BP <140 or diastolic BP <90 for all others. Analyses were conducted using generalized linear mixed effect models with intention to treat. Sixty-seven of 1,133 participants assigned to eCAU and 85 of 1,232 COACH participants were lost to follow-up over 12 months. Thirty-six participants died of natural causes, 22 in the COACH arm and 14 receiving eCAU. Forty COACH participants discontinued antidepressant medication due to side effects. Compared with participants who received eCAU, COACH participants showed greater reduction in depressive symptoms (Cohen's d [±SD] = -1.43 [-1.71, -1.15]; p < 0.001) and greater likelihood of achieving HTN control (odds ratio [OR] [95% CI] = 18.24 [8.40, 39.63]; p < 0.001). Limitations of the study include the inability to mask research assessors and participants to which condition a village was assigned, and lack of information about participants' adherence to recommendations for lifestyle and medication management of HTN and depression. Generalizability of the model to other regions of China or other LMICs may be limited.ConclusionsThe COACH model of integrated care management resulted in greater improvement in both depression symptom severity and HTN control among older adult residents of rural Chinese villages who had both conditions than did eCAU.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01938963 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01938963.

Project description:ImportanceDepression is often comorbid in patients with heart failure (HF) and is associated with worse clinical outcomes. However, depression generally goes unrecognized and untreated in this population.ObjectiveTo determine whether a blended collaborative care program for treating both HF and depression can improve clinical outcomes more than collaborative care for HF only and physicians' usual care (UC).Design, setting, and participantsThis 3-arm, single-blind, randomized effectiveness trial recruited 756 participants with HF with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (<45%) from 8 university-based and community hospitals in southwestern Pennsylvania between March 2014 and October 2017 and observed them until November 2018. Participants included 629 who screened positive for depression during hospitalization and 2 weeks postdischarge and 127 randomly sampled participants without depression to facilitate further comparisons. Key analyses were performed November 2018 to March 2019.InterventionsSeparate physician-supervised nurse teams provided either 12 months of collaborative care for HF and depression ("blended" care) or collaborative care for HF only (enhanced UC [eUC]).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was mental health-related quality of life (mHRQOL) as measured by the Mental Component Summary of the 12-item Short Form Health Survey (MCS-12). Secondary outcomes included mood, physical function, HF pharmacotherapy use, rehospitalizations, and mortality.ResultsOf the 756 participants (mean [SD] age, 64.0 [13.0] years; 425 [56%] male), those with depression reported worse mHRQOL, mood, and physical function but were otherwise similar to those without depression (eg, mean left ventricular ejection fraction, 28%). At 12 months, blended care participants reported a 4.47-point improvement on the MCS-12 vs UC (95% CI, 1.65 to 7.28; P = .002), but similar scores as the eUC arm (1.12; 95% CI, -1.15 to 3.40; P = .33). Blended care participants also reported better mood than UC participants (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Depression effect size, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.67) and eUC participants (0.24; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.41), but physical function, HF pharmacotherapy use, rehospitalizations, and mortality were similar by both baseline depression and randomization status.Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial of patients with HF and depression, telephone-delivered blended collaborative care produced modest improvements in mHRQOL, the primary outcome, on the MCS-12 vs UC but not eUC. Although blended care did not differentially affect rehospitalization and mortality, it improved mood better than eUC and UC and thus may enable organized health care systems to provide effective first-line depression care to medically complex patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02044211.

Project description:Meta-analyses show collaborative care models (CCMs) with nurse care management are effective for improving primary care for depression. This study aimed to develop CCM approaches that could be sustained and spread within Veterans Affairs (VA). Evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI) uses QI approaches within a research/clinical partnership to redesign care. The study used EBQI methods for CCM redesign, tested the effectiveness of the locally adapted model as implemented, and assessed the contextual factors shaping intervention effectiveness.The study intervention is EBQI as applied to CCM implementation. The study uses a cluster randomized design as a formative evaluation tool to test and improve the effectiveness of the redesign process, with seven intervention and three non-intervention VA primary care practices in five different states. The primary study outcome is patient antidepressant use. The context evaluation is descriptive and uses subgroup analysis. The primary context evaluation measure is naturalistic primary care clinician (PCC) predilection to adopt CCM.For the randomized evaluation, trained telephone research interviewers enrolled consecutive primary care patients with major depression in the evaluation, referred enrolled patients in intervention practices to the implemented CCM, and re-surveyed at seven months.Interviewers enrolled 288 CCM site and 258 non-CCM site patients. Enrolled intervention site patients were more likely to receive appropriate antidepressant care (66% versus 43%, p = 0.01), but showed no significant difference in symptom improvement compared to usual care. In terms of context, only 40% of enrolled patients received complete care management per protocol. PCC predilection to adopt CCM had substantial effects on patient participation, with patients belonging to early adopter clinicians completing adequate care manager follow-up significantly more often than patients of clinicians with low predilection to adopt CCM (74% versus 48%%, p = 0.003).Depression CCM designed and implemented by primary care practices using EBQI improved antidepressant initiation. Combining QI methods with a randomized evaluation proved challenging, but enabled new insights into the process of translating research-based CCM into practice. Future research on the effects of PCC attitudes and skills on CCM results, as well as on enhancing the link between improved antidepressant use and symptom outcomes, is needed.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00105820.

Project description:IntroductionDespite carrying a disproportionately high burden of depression, patients in low-income countries lack access to effective care. The collaborative care model (CoCM) has robust evidence for clinical effectiveness in improving mental health outcomes. However, evidence from real-world implementation of CoCM is necessary to inform its expansion in low-resource settings.MethodsWe conducted a 2-year mixed-methods study to assess the implementation and clinical impact of CoCM using the WHO Mental Health Gap Action Programme protocols in a primary care clinic in rural Nepal. We used the Capability Opportunity Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) implementation research framework to adapt and study the intervention. To assess implementation factors, we qualitatively studied the impact on providers' behaviour to screen, diagnose and treat mental illness. To assess clinical impact, we followed a cohort of 201 patients with moderate to severe depression and determined the proportion of patients who had a substantial clinical response (defined as ≥50% decrease from baseline scores of Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) to measure depression) by the end of the study period.ResultsProviders experienced improved capability (enhanced self-efficacy and knowledge), greater opportunity (via access to counsellors, psychiatrist, medications and diagnostic tests) and increased motivation (developing positive attitudes towards people with mental illness and seeing patients improve) to provide mental healthcare. We observed substantial clinical response in 99 (49%; 95% CI: 42% to 56%) of the 201 cohort patients, with a median seven point (Q1:-9, Q3:-2) decrease in PHQ-9 scores (p<0.0001).ConclusionUsing the COM-B framework, we successfully adapted and implemented CoCM in rural Nepal, and found that it enhanced providers' positive perceptions of and engagement in delivering mental healthcare. We observed clinical improvement of depression comparable to controlled trials in high-resource settings. We recommend using implementation research to adapt and evaluate CoCM in other resource-constrained settings to help expand access to high-quality mental healthcare.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Depression and coronary heart disease (CHD) are frequently comorbid and portend higher morbidity, mortality and poorer quality of life. Prior systematic reviews of depression treatment randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the population with CHD have not assessed the efficacy of collaborative care. This systematic review aims to bring together the contemporary research on the effectiveness of collaborative care interventions for depression in comorbid CHD populations. METHODS/DESIGN: Electronic databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL) will be searched using a sensitive search strategy exploding the topics CHD, depression and RCT. Full text inspection and bibliography searching will be conducted, and authors of included studies will be contacted to identify unpublished studies. Eligibility criteria are: population, depression comorbid with CHD; intervention, RCT of collaborative care defined as a coordinated model of care involving multidisciplinary health care providers, including: (a) primary physician and at least one other health professional (e.g. nurse, psychiatrist, psychologist), (b) a structured patient management plan that delivers either pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention, (c) scheduled patient follow-up and (d) enhanced inter-professional communication between the multiprofessional team; comparison, either usual care, enhanced usual care, wait-list control group or no further treatment; and outcome, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), standardized measure of depression, anxiety, quality of life, cost-effectiveness. Screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be undertaken by two reviewers with disagreements resolved through discussion. Meta-analytic methods will be used to synthesize the data collected relating to the outcomes. DISCUSSION: This review will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for depression in populations primarily with CHD. The results will facilitate integration of evidence-based practice for this precarious population. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014013653.