Dataset Information

Collaborative mental health care program versus a general practitioner program and usual care for treatment of patients with mental or neurological disorders in Germany: protocol of a multiperspective evaluation study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:German statutory health insurances are pursuing the goal of improving treatment of chronically ill people by promoting networks of health care providers and supporting treatments that reflect the current medical knowledge. The so-called PNP program is a collaborative care program developed by a German statutory health insurance, which defines specific rules on psychiatric, neurological, psychosomatic, and psychotherapeutic treatment. It aims to strengthen provision of guideline-based outpatient treatment and collaboration between different health care providers. It includes the general practitioners' program, which aims to strengthen the coordinating role of GPs. This study aims to evaluate the PNP program. METHODS:To evaluate the effectiveness of the PNP program, we will conduct a prospective non-randomized controlled trial with primary data comparing patients enrolled in the PNP program and in the general practitioner program (intervention group) to patients enrolled only in the general practitioner program and patients who receive usual care (control groups). To evaluate costs and level of detail of diagnoses in care of patients with PNP program, we will use routinely collected secondary administrative health data in a retrospective quasi-experimental design. Patients who are at least 18 years old, insured by the statutory health insurance AOK, and on sick leave due to one of the mental or neurological diagnoses (affective, anxiety, somatoform or adjustment disorders, alcohol use disorders, schizophrenia, multiple sclerosis) will be included. We will collect data at baseline and at 12-months follow-up. Health-related quality of life (primary data) and direct costs (secondary data) caused by outpatient and inpatient service utilization and medication will be the primary outcomes. We will analyze data using (generalized) linear mixed models and exploratory analyses. We will use entropy balancing to control for possible differences between the groups. We will use an exploratory sequential design including qualitative and descriptive statistical analyses to assess the structure and process quality of the PNP program among health care providers. DISCUSSION:The results will help to develop a comprehensive picture of collaborative care programs for mental and neurological health care from the perspective of patients, health care providers, and health insurance companies. TRIAL REGISTRATION:German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00013114.

SUBMITTER: Magaard JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6202836 | biostudies-other | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Collaborative mental health care program versus a general practitioner program and usual care for treatment of patients with mental or neurological disorders in Germany: protocol of a multiperspective evaluation study.

Magaard Julia Luise JL Liebherz Sarah S Melchior Hanne H Engels Alexander A König Hans-Helmut HH Kriston Levente L Schulz Holger H Jahed Jeanette J Brütt Anna Levke AL Reber Katrin Christiane KC Härter Martin M

BMC psychiatry 20181025 1

<h4>Background</h4>German statutory health insurances are pursuing the goal of improving treatment of chronically ill people by promoting networks of health care providers and supporting treatments that reflect the current medical knowledge. The so-called PNP program is a collaborative care program developed by a German statutory health insurance, which defines specific rules on psychiatric, neurological, psychosomatic, and psychotherapeutic treatment. It aims to strengthen provision of guidelin ...[more]

PMID: 30359248

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceIntegrated care for children is rarely studied, especially in low- and middle-income countries, where generalists often provide mental health care.ObjectivesTo explore the effect of adding a child and youth component to an existing adult collaborative care program on mental health outcomes and receipt of care.Design, setting, and participantsThis cluster randomized trial was conducted within an adult collaborative care program in Tehran, Iran. General practitioners (GPs), their 5- to 15-year-old patients, and patients' parents were included. Children and youths coming for routine medical visits who scored greater than the cutoff on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) were followed up for 6 months. The study was conducted from May 2018 to October 2019, and analysis was conducted from March 2020 to August 2021.InterventionsGPs were randomized to either a 2.5-day training on managing common child mental health problems (intervention) or refresher training on identification and referral (control).Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcome was change in SDQ total problems score; secondary outcomes included discussion of psychosocial issues by the GPs and receipt of mental health care during the follow-up period.ResultsOverall, 49 GPs cared for 389 children who scored greater than the cutoff on the SDQ (216 children in intervention group, 173 in control group). Patients' mean (SD) age was 8.9 (2.9) years (range, 5 to 15 years), and 182 (47%) were female patients. At 6 months, children in the intervention group had greater odds of receiving mental health care during the study (odds ratio [OR], 3.0; 95% CI, 1.1 to 7.7), parents were more likely to report that intervention GPs had discussed parent (OR, 2.1; 95% Cl, 1.1 to 3.8) and child (OR, 2.0; 95% Cl, 0.9 to 4.8) psychosocial issues, and intervention GPs were more likely to say they had provided counseling (OR, 1.8; 95% Cl, 1.02 to 3.3). However, there was no greater improvement in SDQ scores among children seen by intervention vs control GPs. Adjusted for clustering within GP, the variables used for balanced allocation (practice size, practice ownership, and study wave), and the other variables associated with change in SDQ scores over time, there was not a significant time-treatment interaction at either the 3- or 6-month follow-up points (linear combination of coefficients for intervention, 0.57 [95% CI, -1.07 to 2.22] and -0.08 [95%CI, -1.76 to 1.56], respectively). In a subgroup of GPs with practices composed of 50% or more children, children seen by intervention GPs improved to a significantly greater extent (-3.6 points; 95% CI, -6.7 to -0.46 points; effect size d = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.30 to 1.01) compared with those seen by control GPs.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cluster randomized trial, GP training on managing common child mental health problems did not demonstrate greater improvement in child SDQ scores. Child mental health training for GPs in collaborative care can improve children's access to mental health care, but prior experience working with children and their families may be required for GPs to use a brief training in a way that improves child outcomes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03144739.

Project description:BackgroundPatients' relationship with their GPs is linked to adherence, patient behaviour and satisfaction with healthcare. Several factors pertaining to this relationship have already been identified, however expectations and preferences vary depending on age and diagnosis. Chronically ill elderly patients constitute a group of patients with specific needs that are not yet understood.MethodsFor this observational study, 100 (44 female, mean age 72.72 + - 8.28 years) patients were interviewed. Multiple linear or binary logistic regression as well as analysis of variance was used to understand the link between factors pertaining to GP relationship and patient behaviour, and principal component analysis was performed to understand the underlying structure of patients' needs.ResultsPatients attribute high importance to their GP's opinion of them. On average, what the GP thinks about the patients is almost as important as what their partners think. Patients primarily want to be perceived as engaged, friendly and respected individuals, and it is important for patients to be liked by their GP. This importance is linked to active preparation; 65% of the patients prepared actively for GP consultations. Expectations regarding GP consultations can be split into two components: a medical aspect with a subfactor concerning emotional support, and a social component. Prominent factors influencing the relationship are the possibility to talk about emotions and mental well-being, trust, and GP competency. Satisfaction and trust were mainly linked to medical competency. Being able to show emotions or talk about mental well-being enhances perceived GP competence, satisfaction, and active patient preparation. However, a focus on the social component such as frequent talking about private topics reduces both perceived GP competency as well as active patient preparation.ConclusionOlder patients take GP consultations seriously, and their expectations regarding GP consultations focus on medical competence and care as well as empathetic listening and understanding. Older persons seek a deeper connection to their GPs and are willing to be active and cooperative. As the patient-GP relationship influences health outcomes, treatment of older patients should be adjusted to enable this active participation.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the feasibility of a future trial comparing the collaborative care model with usual care for patients with musculoskeletal conditions and co-existing symptoms of anxiety and depression.DesignA single-centre, parallel-arm, one-to-one, randomised controlled trial design using a mixed-methods approach was used. semistructured interviews and focus groups were conducted post intervention with all participants and staff respectively to explore acceptability towards the model and identify recommendations for improvements.SettingAn orthopaedic rehabilitation outpatient tertiary hospital.ParticipantsAdult patients with musculoskeletal conditions and co-existing moderate or severe symptoms of anxiety and depression attending outpatient therapy appointments.InterventionThe collaborative care model consisted of a tailored management programme to facilitate the integration of care provided by physical and mental healthcare professionals. A case manager screened and coordinated targeted mental health support for participants. Participants allocated to usual care had no support from the case manager.Main outcomes measureFeasibility indicators (rates of recruitment, randomisation and retention), acceptability of clinical outcome measures, usage of additional resources and cost of intervention implementation.ResultsOf the 89 patients who provided consent to take part, 40 participants who matched the eligibility criteria were randomised to either the intervention (n=20) or usual care arm (n=20). Overall adherence to the intervention was 58.82%, while the withdrawal rate was 37.5% at 6 months. All of the 27 participants who were retained completed self-reported outcomes. Qualitative data highlighted that integrated mental health support was favourably perceived. In addition to prenegotiating protected psychology time, the need for operationalised communication between the case manager and clinicians was identified as a recommendation for a future trial.ConclusionsThe trial and intervention were acceptable to patients and healthcare professionals. While the findings demonstrate the feasibility of trial recruitment, a future trial will require optimised retention strategies to improve adherence and withdrawal rates.Trial registration numberNCT05018039.

Project description:ObjectivesReminders in primary care administrative systems aim to help clinicians provide evidence-based care, prescribe safely and save money. However, increased use of reminders can lead to alert fatigue. Our study aimed to assess general practitioners' (GPs) and nurse practitioners' (NPs) views on electronic reminders in primary care.DesignA qualitative analysis using semistructured interviews.Setting and participantsFifteen GPs and NP based in general practices located in North-West London and Yorkshire, England.MethodsWe collected data on participants' views on: (1) perceptions of the value of information provided; (2) reminder-related behaviours and (3) how to improve reminders. We carried out a thematic analysis.ResultsParticipants were familiar with reminders in their clinical systems and felt many were important to support their clinical work. However, participants reported, on average, 70% of reminders were ignored. Four major themes emerged: (1) reaction to a reminder, which was mixed and varied by situation. (2) Factors influencing the decision to act on reminders, often related to experience, consultation styles and interests of participants. Time constraints, alert design, inappropriate presentation and litigation were also factors. (3) Negative consequences of using reminders were increased workload or costs and compromising GP and NPs behaviour. (4) Factors relating to improving users' engagement with reminders were prevention of unnecessary reminders through data linkage across healthcare administrative systems or the development of more intelligent algorithms. Participants felt training was vital to effectively manage reminders.ConclusionsGPs and NPs believe reminders are useful in supporting the provision of good quality patient care. Improving GPs and NPs' engagement with reminders centres on further developing their relevance to their clinical practice, which is personalised, considers cognitive workflow and suppresses inappropriate presentation.

Project description:ObjectivesThis is a pilot study with the objective of investigating general practitioner (GP) perceptions and experiences in the referral of mentally ill and behaviourally disturbed children and adolescents.DesignQuantitative analyses on patient databases were used to ascertain the source of referrals into Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) and identify the relative contribution from GP practices. Qualitative semistructured interviews were then used to explore challenges faced by GPs in referring to CAMHS.SettingGPs were chosen from the five localities that deliver CAMHS within the local Trust (Peterborough City, Fenland, Huntingdon, Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire).ParticipantsFor the quantitative portion, data involving 19 466 separate referrals were used. Seven GPs took part in the qualitative interviews.ResultsThe likelihood of a referral from GPs being rejected by CAMHS was over three times higher compared to all other referral sources combined within the Cambridge and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust. Interviews showed that detecting the signs and symptoms of mental illness in young people is a challenge for GPs. Communication with referral agencies varies and depends on individual relationships. GPs determine whether to refer on a mixture of the presenting conditions and their perceived likelihood of acceptance by CAMHS; the criteria for the latter were poorly understood by the interviewed GPs.ConclusionsThere are longstanding structural weaknesses in the services for children and young people in general, reflected in poor multiagency cooperation at the primary care level. GP-friendly guidelines and standards are required that will aid in decision-making and help with understanding the referrals process. We look to managers of both commissioning and providing organisations, as well as future research, to drive forward the development of tools, protocols, and health service structures to help aid the recognition and treatment of mental illness in young people.

Dataset Information

Collaborative mental health care program versus a general practitioner program and usual care for treatment of patients with mental or neurological disorders in Germany: protocol of a multiperspective evaluation study.

Publications

Collaborative mental health care program versus a general practitioner program and usual care for treatment of patients with mental or neurological disorders in Germany: protocol of a multiperspective evaluation study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets