Dataset Information

Complexity in partnerships: A qualitative examination of collaborative depression care in primary care clinics and community-based organisations in California, United States.

ABSTRACT: Partnering across health clinics and community organisations, while worthwhile for improving health and well-being, is challenging and time consuming. Even partnerships that have essential elements for success in place face inevitable challenges. To better understand how cross-organisational partnerships work in practice, this paper examines collaborations between six primary care clinics and community-based organisations in the United States that were part of an initiative to address late-life depression using an enhanced collaborative care model (Archstone Foundation Care Partners Project). As part of an evaluation of the Care Partners Project, 54 key informant interviews and 10 focus groups were conducted from 2015 to 2017. Additionally, more than 80 project-related documents were reviewed. Qualitative thematic analysis was used to code the transcripts and identify prominent themes in the data. Examining clinic and community organisation partnerships in practice highlighted their inherent complexity. The partnerships were fluid and constantly evolving, shaped by a multiplicity of perspectives and values, and vulnerable to unpredictability. Care Partners sites negotiated the complexity of their partnerships drawing upon three main strategies: adaptation (allowing for flexibility and rapid change); integration (providing opportunities for multi-level partnerships within and across organisations) and cultivation (fostering a commitment to the partnership and its value). These strategies provided opportunities for Care Partners collaborators to work with the inherent complexity of partnering. Intentionally acknowledging and embracing such complexity rather than trying to reduce or avoid it, may allow clinic and community collaborators to strengthen and sustain their partnerships.

SUBMITTER: Henderson S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7318288 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Complexity in partnerships: A qualitative examination of collaborative depression care in primary care clinics and community-based organisations in California, United States.

Henderson Stuart S Wagner Jenny L JL Gosdin Melissa M MM Hoeft Theresa J TJ Unützer Jürgen J Rath Laura L Hinton Ladson L

Health & social care in the community 20200212 4

Partnering across health clinics and community organisations, while worthwhile for improving health and well-being, is challenging and time consuming. Even partnerships that have essential elements for success in place face inevitable challenges. To better understand how cross-organisational partnerships work in practice, this paper examines collaborations between six primary care clinics and community-based organisations in the United States that were part of an initiative to address late-life ...[more]

PMID: 32052531

Similar Datasets

Project description:Purpose Today's clinical trial partnerships frequently join multi-disciplinary investigators and stakeholders, from different countries and cultures, to conduct research with a broad array of goals. This diversity, while a strength, can also foster divergent views about priorities and what constitutes success, thereby posing challenges for management, operations, and evaluation. As a sponsor and partner in such collaborations, we seek to assist and support their development and implementation of sound research strategies, to optimize their efficiency, sustainability, and public health impact. This report describes our efforts using an adaptation of the well-established Kaplan-Norton strategy management paradigm, in our clinical trials setting. We share findings from our first test of the utility and acceptance of this approach for evaluating and managing research strategies in a collaborative clinical research partnership. Results Findings from pilot studies and our first implementation in an ongoing clinical research partnership in Liberia, provide initial support for our hypothesis that an adapted version of the Kaplan-Norton strategy management model can have use in this setting. With leadership from within the partnership, analysis artifacts were gathered, and assessments made using standardized tools. Practical feasibility, resonance of the findings with partners, and convergence with other empirical assessments lend initial support for the view that this approach holds promise for obtaining meaningful, useable results for assessing and improving clinical research management. Conclusions and Implications Engaged leadership, thoughtful timing to align with partnership planning cycles, support for the process, and an eye towards the collaboration's long-term goals appear important for developing model understanding and practice. Skepticism about evaluations, and unease at exposing weaknesses, may hinder the effort. Acceptance of findings and associated opportunities for improvement by group leadership, support a growing sense of validity. Next steps aim to test the approach in other partnerships, streamline the methodology for greater ease of use, and seek possible correlations of strategy management assessments with performance evaluation. There is hardly a better example than the COVID-19 pandemic, to spotlight the need for efficient and effective clinical research partnerships to address global health challenges. While heartened by the collaborative spirit driving the effort so far, we cannot let our enthusiasm lull us into thinking that nobility of purpose or an abundance of good will is sufficient. Careful monitoring and adjustment of clinical research strategy in response to changes (e.g., demographics, pathogen evolution, research acceptance, political and cultural environments) are vital to making the needed adjustments that can guide these programs toward successful outcomes. We hope that our work can raise awareness about the importance, relevance, and feasibility of sound strategy management in clinical research partnerships, especially during this time when there is so much at stake.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with depression and poorly controlled diabetes, coronary heart disease, or both have an increased risk of adverse outcomes and high health care costs. We conducted a study to determine whether coordinated care management of multiple conditions improves disease control in these patients.MethodsWe conducted a single-blind, randomized, controlled trial in 14 primary care clinics in an integrated health care system in Washington State, involving 214 participants with poorly controlled diabetes, coronary heart disease, or both and coexisting depression. Patients were randomly assigned to the usual-care group or to the intervention group, in which a medically supervised nurse, working with each patient's primary care physician, provided guideline-based, collaborative care management, with the goal of controlling risk factors associated with multiple diseases. The primary outcome was based on simultaneous modeling of glycated hemoglobin, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and systolic blood-pressure levels and Symptom Checklist-20 (SCL-20) depression outcomes at 12 months; this modeling allowed estimation of a single overall treatment effect.ResultsAs compared with controls, patients in the intervention group had greater overall 12-month improvement across glycated hemoglobin levels (difference, 0.58%), LDL cholesterol levels (difference, 6.9 mg per deciliter [0.2 mmol per liter]), systolic blood pressure (difference, 5.1 mm Hg), and SCL-20 depression scores (difference, 0.40 points) (P<0.001). Patients in the intervention group also were more likely to have one or more adjustments of insulin (P=0.006), antihypertensive medications (P<0.001), and antidepressant medications (P<0.001), and they had better quality of life (P<0.001) and greater satisfaction with care for diabetes, coronary heart disease, or both (P<0.001) and with care for depression (P<0.001).ConclusionsAs compared with usual care, an intervention involving nurses who provided guideline-based, patient-centered management of depression and chronic disease significantly improved control of medical disease and depression. (Funded by the National Institute of Mental Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00468676.).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite the growing consensus that collaborative care is effective, limited research has focused on the importance of collaborative care fidelity as it relates to mental health clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE:To assess the relationship of collaborative care fidelity on symptom trajectories and clinical outcomes among military service members enrolled in a multi-site randomized controlled trial for the treatment of depression and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). DESIGN:Study data for our analyses came from a two-parallel arm randomized trial that evaluated the effectiveness of a centralized collaborative care model compared to the existing collaborative care model for the treatment of PTSD and depression. All patients were included in the analyses to evaluate how longitudinal trajectories of PTSD and depression scores differed across various collaborative care fidelity groupings. PARTICIPANTS:A total of 666 US Military Service members screening positive for probable PTSD or depression through primary care. MAIN MEASURES:Disease registry data from a web-based clinical management support tool was used to measure collaborative care fidelity for patients enrolled in the trial. Participant depression and PTSD symptoms were collected independently from research survey assessments at four time points across the 1-year trial period. Treatment utilization records were acquired from the Military Health System administrative records to determine mental health service use. KEY RESULTS:Consistent and late fidelity to the collaborative care model predicted an improving symptom trajectory over the course of treatment. This effect was more pronounced for patients with depression than for patients with PTSD. CONCLUSIONS:Long-term fidelity to key collaborative care elements throughout care episodes may improve depression outcomes, particularly for patients with elevated symptoms. More controlled research is needed to further understand the influence of collaborative care fidelity on clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT01492348.

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.

Dataset Information

Complexity in partnerships: A qualitative examination of collaborative depression care in primary care clinics and community-based organisations in California, United States.

Publications

Complexity in partnerships: A qualitative examination of collaborative depression care in primary care clinics and community-based organisations in California, United States.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets