BACKGROUND

Few depressed older adults receive effective treatment in primary care settings.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of the Improving Mood-Promoting Access to Collaborative Treatment (IMPACT) collaborative care management program for late-life depression.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trial with recruitment from July 1999 to August 2001.

METHODS

Eighteen primary care clinics from 8 health care organizations in 5 states.

METHODS

A total of 1801 patients aged 60 years or older with major depression (17%), dysthymic disorder (30%), or both (53%).

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to the IMPACT intervention (n = 906) or to usual care (n = 895). Intervention patients had access for up to 12 months to a depression care manager who was supervised by a psychiatrist and a primary care expert and who offered education, care management, and support of antidepressant management by the patient's primary care physician or a brief psychotherapy for depression, Problem Solving Treatment in Primary Care.

METHODS

Assessments at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months for depression, depression treatments, satisfaction with care, functional impairment, and quality of life.

RESULTS

At 12 months, 45% of intervention patients had a 50% or greater reduction in depressive symptoms from baseline compared with 19% of usual care participants (odds ratio [OR], 3.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.71-4.38; P<.001). Intervention patients also experienced greater rates of depression treatment (OR, 2.98; 95% CI, 2.34-3.79; P<.001), more satisfaction with depression care (OR, 3.38; 95% CI, 2.66-4.30; P<.001), lower depression severity (range, 0-4; between-group difference, -0.4; 95% CI, -0.46 to -0.33; P<.001), less functional impairment (range, 0-10; between-group difference, -0.91; 95% CI, -1.19 to -0.64; P<.001), and greater quality of life (range, 0-10; between-group difference, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.32-0.79; P<.001) than participants assigned to the usual care group.

CONCLUSIONS

The IMPACT collaborative care model appears to be feasible and significantly more effective than usual care for depression in a wide range of primary care practices.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention in patients with depression in primary care with the effectiveness of "usual care" by the primary care physician.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial among primary care patients with major depression or minor depression.

METHODS

Over a 12-month period a total of 217 primary care patients who were recognized as depressed by their primary care physicians and were willing to take antidepressant medication were randomized, with 91 patients meeting criteria for major depression and 126 for minor depression.

METHODS

Intervention patients received increased intensity and frequency of visits over the first 4 to 6 weeks of treatment (visits 1 and 3 with a primary care physician, visits 2 and 4 with a psychiatrist) and continued surveillance of adherence to medication regimens during the continuation and maintenance phases of treatment. Patient education in these visits was supplemented by videotaped and written materials.

METHODS

Primary outcome measures included short-term (30-day) and long-term (90-day) use of antidepressant medication at guideline dosage levels, satisfaction with overall care for depression and antidepressant medication, and reduction in depressive symptoms.

RESULTS

In patients with major depression, the intervention group had greater adherence than the usual care controls to adequate dosage of antidepressant medication for 90 days or more (75.5% vs 50.0%; P < .01), were more likely to rate the quality of the care they received for depression as good to excellent (93.0% vs 75.0%; P < .03), and were more likely to rate antidepressant medications as helping somewhat to helping a great deal (88.1% vs 63.3%; P < .01). Seventy-four percent of intervention patients with major depression showed 50% or more improvement on the Symptom Checklist-90 Depressive Symptom Scale compared with 43.8% of controls (P < .01), and the intervention patients also demonstrated a significantly greater decrease in depression severity over time compared with controls (P < .004). In patients with minor depression, the intervention group had significantly greater adherence than controls to adequate dosage of antidepressant medication for 90 days or more (79.7% vs 40.3%; P < .001) and more often rated antidepressant medication as helping somewhat to helping a great deal (81.8% vs 61.4%; P < .02). However, no significant differences were found between the intervention and control groups in the percentage of patients who were satisfied with the care they received for depression (94.4% vs 89.3%), in the percentage who experienced a 50% or more decrease in depressive symptoms, or in the decrease of depressive symptoms over time.

CONCLUSIONS

A multifaceted intervention consisting of collaborative management by the primary care physician and a consulting psychiatrist, intensive patient education, and surveillance of continued refills of antidepressant medication improved adherence to antidepressant regimens in patients with major and with minor depression. It improved satisfaction with care and resulted in more favorable depressive outcomes in patients with major, but not minor, depression.

BACKGROUND

There is a high prevalence of depression in patients with diabetes mellitus. Depression has been shown to be associated with poor self-management (adherence to diet, exercise, checking blood glucose levels) and high hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels in patients with diabetes.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether enhancing quality of care for depression improves both depression and diabetes outcomes in patients with depression and diabetes.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trial with recruitment from March 1, 2001, to May 31, 2002.

METHODS

Nine primary care clinics from a large health maintenance organization.

METHODS

A total of 329 patients with diabetes mellitus and comorbid major depression and/or dysthymia. Intervention Patients were randomly assigned to the Pathways case management intervention (n = 164) or usual care (n = 165). The intervention provided enhanced education and support of antidepressant medication treatment prescribed by the primary care physician or problem-solving therapy delivered in primary care.

METHODS

Independent blinded assessments at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months of depression (Hopkins Symptom Checklist 90), global improvement, and satisfaction with care. Automated clinical data were used to evaluate adherence to antidepressant regimens, percentage receiving specialty mental health visits, and HbA1c levels.

RESULTS

When compared with usual care patients, intervention patients showed greater improvement in adequacy of dosage of antidepressant medication treatment in the first 6-month period (odds ratio [OR], 4.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.28-7.55) and the second 6-month period (OR, 2.90; 95% CI, 1.69-4.98), less depression severity over time (z = 2.84, P = .004), a higher rating of patient-rated global improvement at 6 months (intervention 69.4% vs usual care 39.3%; OR, 3.50; 95% CI, 2.16-5.68) and 12 months (intervention 71.9% vs usual care 42.3%; OR, 3.50; 95% CI, 2.14-5.72), and higher satisfaction with care at 6 months (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.18-3.43) and 12 months (OR, 2.88; 95% CI, 1.67-4.97). Although depressive outcomes were improved, no differences in HbA1c outcomes were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The Pathways collaborative care model improved depression care and outcomes in patients with comorbid major depression and/or dysthymia and diabetes mellitus, but improved depression care alone did not result in improved glycemic control.

BACKGROUND

Despite improvements in the accuracy of diagnosing depression and use of medications with fewer side effects, many patients treated with antidepressant medications by primary care physicians have persistent symptoms.

METHODS

A group of 228 patients recognized as depressed by their primary care physicians and given antidepressant medication who had either 4 or more persistent major depressive symptoms or a score of 1.5 or more on the Hopkins Symptom Checklist depression items at 6 to 8 weeks were randomized to a collaborative care intervention (n = 114) or usual care (n = 114) by the primary care physician. Patients in the intervention group received enhanced education and increased frequency of visits by a psychiatrist working with the primary care physician to improve pharmacologic treatment. Follow-up assessments were completed at 1, 3, and 6 months by a telephone survey team blinded to randomization status.

RESULTS

Those in the intervention group had significantly greater adherence to adequate dosage of medication for 90 days or more and were more likely to rate the quality of care they received for depression as good to excellent compared with usual care controls. Intervention patients showed a significantly greater decrease compared with usual care controls in severity of depressive symptoms over time and were more likely to have fully recovered at 3 and 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

A multifaceted program targeted to patients whose depressive symptoms persisted 6 to 8 weeks after initiation of antidepressant medication by their primary care physician was found to significantly improve adherence to antidepressants, satisfaction with care, and depressive outcomes compared with usual care.

General population data are presented on the prevalence and correlates of comorbidity between DSM-III-R major depressive disorder (MDD) and other DSM-III-R disorders. The data come from the US National Comorbidity Survey, a large general population survey of persons aged 15-54 years in the non-institutionalised civilian population. Diagnoses are based on a modified version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). The analysis shows that most cases of lifetime MDD are secondary. In the sense that they occur in people with a prior history of another DSM-III-R disorder. Anxiety disorders are the most common primary disorders. The time-lagged effects of most primary disorders on the risk of subsequent MDD continue for many years without change in magnitude. Secondary MDD is, in general, more persistent and severe than pure or primary MDD. This has special public health significance because lifetime prevalence of secondary MDD has increased in recent cohorts, while the prevalence of pure and primary depression has remained unchanged.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the long term effectiveness of collaborative care management for depression in late life.

METHODS

Two arm, randomised, clinical trial; intervention one year and follow-up two years.

METHODS

18 primary care clinics in eight US healthcare organisations. Patients 1801 primary care patients aged 60 and older with major depression, dysthymia, or both.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to a 12 month collaborative care intervention (IMPACT) or usual care for depression. Teams including a depression care manager, primary care doctor, and psychiatrist offered education, behavioural activation, antidepressants, a brief, behaviour based psychotherapy (problem solving treatment), and relapse prevention geared to each patient's needs and preferences.

METHODS

Interviewers, blinded to treatment assignment, conducted interviews in person at baseline and by telephone at each subsequent follow up. They measured depression (SCL-20), overall functional impairment and quality of life (SF-12), physical functioning (PCS-12), depression treatment, and satisfaction with care.

RESULTS

IMPACT patients fared significantly (P < 0.05) better than controls regarding continuation of antidepressant treatment, depressive symptoms, remission of depression, physical functioning, quality of life, self efficacy, and satisfaction with care at 18 and 24 months. One year after IMPACT resources were withdrawn, a significant difference in SCL-20 scores (0.23, P < 0.0001) favouring IMPACT patients remained.

CONCLUSIONS

Tailored collaborative care actively engages older adults in treatment for depression and delivers substantial and persistent long term benefits. Benefits include less depression, better physical functioning, and an enhanced quality of life. The IMPACT model may show the way to less depression and healthier lives for older adults.

OBJECTIVE

To test the effectiveness of an evidence based model for management of depression in primary care with support from quality improvement resources.

METHODS

Cluster randomised controlled trial.

METHODS

Five healthcare organisations in the United States and 60 affiliated practices.

METHODS

405 patients, aged>> or = 18 years, starting or changing treatment for depression.

METHODS

Care provided by clinicians, with staff providing telephone support under supervision from a psychiatrist.

METHODS

Severity of depression at three and six months (Hopkins symptom checklist-20): response to treatment >> or = 50% decrease in scores) and remission (score of < 0.5).

RESULTS

At six months, 60% (106 of 177) of patients in intervention practices had responded to treatment compared with 47% (68 of 146) of patients in usual care practices (P = 0.02). At six months, 37% of intervention patients showed remission compared with 27% for usual care patients (P = 0.014). 90% of intervention patients rated their depression care as good or excellent at six months compared with 75% of usual care patients (P = 0.0003).

CONCLUSIONS

Resources such as quality improvement programmes can be used effectively in primary care to implement evidence based management of depression and improve outcomes for patients with depression.

Recent national epidemiologic studies have provided data on the number of people in the United States with mental and addictive disorders. Many of these people receive their care in the general medical care sector. This has important implications for diagnosis and treatment of mental and addictive disorders.

BACKGROUND

This study assesses depression among primary care patients, the relationship between depression and functioning, and how frequently depressed individuals receive mental health treatment.

METHODS

Two hundred and thirteen participants completed a diagnostic interview and measures of functional impairment and service utilization.

RESULTS

Sixty-two clinic patients were depressed, and depressed individuals experienced significant functional impairment even after controlling for comorbid anxiety disorders and medical problems. However, less than 40% of depressed individuals were receiving treatment for depression. Severity of impairment was related to likelihood of receiving mental health services.

CONCLUSIONS

Several factors to consider when evaluating this study are the cross-sectional design, use of self-report data, and lack of random sampling.

CONCLUSIONS

These results show that depression has a unique and significant impact on the functioning of primary care patients, and emphasize the need for identification of depressive disorders in primary care.

OBJECTIVE

Most studies evaluating the adequacy of antidepressant treatment have focused on the relatively small segment of the medicated population with a diagnosis of depression. This study assessed the rates and determinants of the adequacy of antidepressant treatment among all outpatients who receive antidepressants.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted using pharmacy claims made by patients with a primary care physician in a managed care plan at an academic medical center from 1996 through 1999. Adequate antidepressant treatment was defined as prescription of the lowest likely effective dosage of an antidepressant for at least 90 consecutive days. Data for a total of 15,476 records and 1,550 patients were available.

RESULTS

Overall, 46 percent of the patients receiving antidepressants received minimally adequate treatment. The rates of adequate treatment were significantly higher among patients whose antidepressant prescriptions were written by both primary care physicians and psychiatrists than among patients whose antidepressants were prescribed solely by primary care physicians (61 percent versus 31 percent). Patients who had trials of SSRIs had significantly higher rates of treatment adequacy than those who had trials of tricyclic antidepressants but not SSRIs (51 percent compared with 27 percent) or trials with other antidepressants only (24 percent).

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacy claims from all patients receiving antidepressants indicate that these drugs are prescribed in ways that are unlikely to be fully effective across the broad spectrum of patients. Adequate antidepressant treatment trials were most likely when psychiatrists collaborated with primary care physicians or other specialists and when SSRIs were used.

Psychiatrist outpatient office visits have the potential to support the recovery of adults with severe mental illnesses by engaging them in a collaborative process of evaluating, selecting, and trying individually-tailored therapeutic options. Evidence-informed shared decision making is difficult for psychiatrists to offer within the framework of care as it is delivered today: it requires time, easy access to relevant scientific information, and extensive communication between patients and psychiatrists. In this paper, we describe the current structural obstacles to collaborative psychiatric care and envision a redesigned office visit process that facilitates active informed patient involvement.

To determine the prevalence and clinical significance of a mixed anxiety-depressive (MAD) syndrome in primary care, a two-stage sampling design was applied to 796 consecutive clinic attendees without known psychiatric illness. Among 78 systematically interviewed subjects, 10.3% (n = 8) had a depressive disorder alone, 12.8% (n = 10) had an anxiety disorder alone, 19.2% (n = 15) had a comorbid anxiety and depressive disorder and 12.8% (n = 10) had a combination of subsyndromal anxiety and depressive features that fulfilled either ICD-10 or our own operational criteria for MAD. Patients with MAD rated their disability as being comparable to that of patients with anxiety or depressive disorders. These findings lend support to the notion that there is a sizeable subgroup of patients in primary care who appear to be suffering from a psychiatric syndrome with an admixture of subsyndromal depressive and anxiety features. Questions about the temporal stability of MAD and preferred approaches to treatment have yet to be answered.