A randomized trial of telemedicine-based collaborative care for depression.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Fortney JC
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2305730 | biostudies-other | 2007 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:Practice-based collaborative care is a complex evidence-based practice that is difficult to implement in smaller primary care practices that lack on-site mental health staff. Telemedicine-based collaborative care virtually co-locates and integrates mental health providers into primary care settings. The objective of this multisite randomized pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial was to compare the outcomes of patients assigned to practice-based and telemedicine-based collaborative care.From 2007 to 2009, patients at federally qualified health centers serving medically underserved populations were screened for depression, and 364 patients who screened positive were enrolled and followed for 18 months. Those assigned to practice-based collaborative care received evidence-based care from an on-site primary care provider and a nurse care manager. Those assigned to telemedicine-based collaborative care received evidence-based care from an on-site primary care provider and an off-site team: a nurse care manager and a pharmacist by telephone, and a psychologist and a psychiatrist via videoconferencing. The primary clinical outcome measures were treatment response, remission, and change in depression severity.Significant group main effects were observed for both response (odds ratio=7.74, 95% CI=3.94-15.20) and remission (odds ratio=12.69, 95% CI=4.81-33.46), and a significant overall group-by-time interaction effect was observed for depression severity on the Hopkins Symptom Checklist, with greater reductions in severity over time for patients in the telemedicine-based group. Improvements in outcomes appeared to be attributable to higher fidelity to the collaborative care evidence base in the telemedicine-based group.Contracting with an off-site telemedicine-based collaborative care team can yield better outcomes than implementing practice-based collaborative care with locally available staff.
| S-EPMC3816374 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC4492537 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Depressive symptoms commonly follow coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and are associated with less positive clinical outcomes.To test the effectiveness of telephone-delivered collaborative care for post-CABG depression vs usual physician care.Single-blind effectiveness trial at 7 university-based and community hospitals in or near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Participants were 302 post-CABG patients with depression (150, intervention; 152, usual care) and a comparison group of 151 randomly sampled post-CABG patients without depression recruited between March 2004 and September 2007 and observed as outpatients until June 2008.Eight months of telephone-delivered collaborative care provided by nurses working with patients' primary care physicians and supervised by a psychiatrist and primary care physician from this study.Mental health-related quality of life (HRQL) measured by the Short Form-36 Mental Component Summary (SF-36 MCS) at 8-month follow-up; secondary outcome measures included assessment of mood symptoms (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HRS-D]), physical HRQL (SF-36 PCS), and functional status (Duke Activity Status Index [DASI]); and hospital readmissions.The intervention patients reported greater improvements in mental HRQL (all P < or = .02) (SF-36 MCS: Delta, 3.2 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5-6.0), physical functioning (DASI: Delta, 4.6 points; 95% CI, 1.9-7.3), and mood symptoms (HRS-D: Delta, 3.1 points; 95% CI, 1.3-4.9); and were more likely to report a 50% or greater decline in HRS-D score from baseline (50.0% vs 29.6%; number needed to treat, 4.9 [95% CI, 3.2-10.4]) than usual care patients (P < .001). Men with depression were particularly likely to benefit from the intervention (SF-36 MCS: Delta, 5.7 points; 95% CI, 2.2-9.2; P = .001). However, the mean HRQL and physical functioning of intervention patients did not reach that of the nondepressed comparison group.Compared with usual care, telephone-delivered collaborative care for treatment of post-CABG depression resulted in improved HRQL, physical functioning, and mood symptoms at 8-month follow-up.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00091962.
| S-EPMC3010227 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite 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. OBJECTIVE:The 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. METHODS:A 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. RESULTS:More 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). CONCLUSIONS:This 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 REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01860443; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01860443 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6wafMKlTY).
| S-EPMC5812981 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Depression is a risk factor for morbidity and mortality in patients with coronary heart disease. Finding effective methods for identifying and treating depression in these patients is a high priority. The purpose of this study was to determine whether collaborative care (CC) for patients who screen positive for depression during an outpatient cardiology visit results in greater improvement in depression symptoms and better medical outcomes than seen in patients who screen positive for depression but receive only usual care (UC).Two hundred-one patients seen in an outpatient cardiology clinic who screened positive for depression during an outpatient visit were randomized to receive either CC or UC. Recommendations for depression treatment and ongoing support and monitoring of depression symptoms were provided to CC patients and their primary care physicians (PCPs) for up to 6months.There were no differences between the arms in mean Beck Depression Inventory-II scores(CC, 15.9; UC, 17.4; p=.45) or in depression remission rates(CC, 32.5%; UC, 26.2%; p=0.34) after 6months, or in the number of hospitalizations after 12months (p=0.73). There were fewer deaths among the CC (1/100) than UC patients (8/101) (p=0.03).This trial did not show that CC produces better depression outcomes than UC. Screening led to a higher rate of depression treatment than was expected in the UC group, and delays in obtaining depression treatment from PCPs may have reduced treatment effectiveness for the CC patients. A different strategy for depression treatment following screening in outpatient cardiology services is needed.
| S-EPMC4961532 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo test the effectiveness of a collaborative depression care model in improving depression and hepatitis C virus (HCV) care.Data sources/study settingHepatitis C virus clinic patients who screened positive for depression at four Veterans Affairs Hospitals.Study designWe compared off-site depression collaborative care (delivered by depression care manager, pharmacist, and psychiatrist) with usual care in a randomized trial. Primary depression outcomes were treatment response (≥50 percent decrease in 20-item Hopkins Symptoms Checklist [SCL-20] score), remission (mean SCL-20 score, <0.5), and depression-free days (DFDs). Primary HCV outcome was receipt of HCV treatment.Data collectionPatient data were collected by self-report telephone surveys at baseline and 12 months, and from electronic medical records.Principal findingsBaseline screening identified 292 HCV-infected patients with depression, and 242 patients completed 12-month follow-up (82.9 percent). Intervention participants were more likely to report depression treatment response, remission, and more DFDs than usual care participants. Intervention participants were more likely to receive antiviral treatment; however, the difference was not statistically significant.ConclusionOff-site depression collaborative care improved depression outcomes in HCV patients and may serve as a model for collaboration between mental health and specialty physical health providers in other high co-occurring conditions.
| S-EPMC6051980 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo determine the effectiveness of the Alleviating Depression Among Patients With Cancer (ADAPt-C) collaborative care management for major depression or dysthymia.Patients and methodsStudy patients included 472 low-income, predominantly female Hispanic patients with cancer age >or= 18 years with major depression (49%), dysthymia (5%), or both (46%). Patients were randomly assigned to intervention (n = 242) or enhanced usual care (EUC; n = 230). Intervention patients had access for up to 12 months to a depression clinical specialist (supervised by a psychiatrist) who offered education, structured psychotherapy, and maintenance/relapse prevention support. The psychiatrist prescribed antidepressant medications for patients preferring or assessed to require medication.ResultsAt 12 months, 63% of intervention patients had a 50% or greater reduction in depressive symptoms from baseline as assessed by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) depression scale compared with 50% of EUC patients (odds ratio [OR] = 1.98; 95% CI, 1.16 to 3.38; P = .01). Improvement was also found for 5-point decrease in PHQ-9 score among 72.2% of intervention patients compared with 59.7% of EUC patients (OR = 1.99; 95% CI, 1.14 to 3.50; P = .02). Intervention patients also experienced greater rates of depression treatment (72.3% v 10.4% of EUC patients; P < .0001) and significantly better quality-of-life outcomes, including social/family (adjusted mean difference between groups, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.22 to 4.17; P < .001), emotional (adjusted mean difference, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.26 to 2.22; P = .01), functional (adjusted mean difference, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.08 to 2.59; P = .04), and physical well-being (adjusted mean difference, 2.79; 95% CI, 0.49 to 5.1; P = .02).ConclusionADAPt-C collaborative care is feasible and results in significant reduction in depressive symptoms, improvement in quality of life, and lower pain levels compared with EUC for patients with depressive disorders in a low-income, predominantly Hispanic population in public sector oncology clinics.
| S-EPMC2653113 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To test Web-based care management of glycemic control using a shared electronic medical record with patients who have type 2 diabetes.We conducted a trial of 83 adults with type 2 diabetes randomized to receive usual care plus Web-based care management or usual care alone between August 2002 and May 2004. All patients had GHb > or =7.0%, had Web access from home, and could use a computer with English language-based programs. Intervention patients received 12 months of Web-based care management. The Web-based program included patient access to electronic medical records, secure e-mail with providers, feedback on blood glucose readings, an educational Web site, and an interactive online diary for entering information about exercise, diet, and medication. The primary outcome was change in GHb.GHb levels declined by 0.7% (95% CI 0.2-1.3) on average among intervention patients compared with usual-care patients. Systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol levels, and use of in-person health care services did not differ between the two groups.Care management delivered through secure patient Web communications improved glycemic control in type 2 diabetes.
| S-EPMC2628685 | 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: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