Comparative Effectiveness of Two Models of Depression Services Quality Improvement in Health and Community Sectors.

OBJECTIVE: The effectiveness of community coalition building and program technical assistance was compared in implementation of collaborative care for depression among health care and community sector clients. METHODS: In under-resourced communities, within 93 programs randomly assigned to coalition building (Community Engagement and Planning) or program technical assistance (Resources for Services) models, 1,018 clients completed surveys at baseline and at six, 12, or 36 months. Regression analysis was used to estimate intervention effects and intervention-by-sector interaction effects on depression, mental health-related quality of life, and community-prioritized outcomes and on services use. RESULTS: For outcomes, there were few significant intervention-by-sector interactions, and stratified findings suggested benefits of coalition building in both sectors. For services use, at 36 months, increases were found for coalition building in primary care visits, self-help visits, and appropriate treatment for community clients and in community-based services use for health care clients. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to program technical assistance, community coalition building benefited clients across sectors and shifted long-term utilization across sectors.

A Community-Partnered, Participatory, Cluster-Randomized Study of Depression Care Quality Improvement: Three-Year Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Community Partners in Care, a community-partnered, cluster-randomized trial with depressed clients from 93 Los Angeles health and community programs, examined the added value of a community coalition approach (Community Engagement and Planning [CEP]) versus individual program technical assistance (Resources for Services [RS]) for implementing depression quality improvement in underserved communities. CEP was more effective than RS in improving mental health-related quality of life, reducing behavioral health hospitalizations, and shifting services toward community-based programs at six months. At 12 months, continued evidence of improvement was found. This study examined three-year outcomes. METHODS: Among 1,004 participants with depression who were eligible for three-year follow-up, 600 participants from 89 programs completed surveys. Multiple regression analyses estimated intervention effects on poor mental health-related quality of life and depression, physical health-related quality of life, behavioral health hospital nights, and use of services. RESULTS: At three years, no differences were found in the effects of CEP versus RS on depression or mental health-related quality of life, but CEP had modest effects in improving physical health-related quality of life and reducing behavioral health hospital nights, and CEP participants had more social- and community-sector depression visits and greater use of mood stabilizers. Sensitivity analyses with longitudinal modeling reproduced these findings but found no significant differences between groups in change from baseline to three years. CONCLUSIONS: At three years, CEP and RS did not have differential effects on primary mental health outcomes, but CEP participants had modest improvements in physical health and fewer behavioral health hospital nights.

The Effects of Collaborative Care Training on Case Managers' Perceived Depression-Related Services Delivery.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the effects of a depression care quality improvement (QI) intervention implemented by using Community Engagement and Planning (CEP), which supports collaboration across health and community-based agencies, or Resources for Services (RS), which provides technical assistance, on training participation and service delivery by primarily unlicensed, racially and ethnically diverse case managers in two low-income communities in Los Angeles. METHODS: The study was a cluster-randomized trial with program-level assignment to CEP or RS for implementation of a QI initiative for providing training for depression care. Staff with patient contact in 84 health and community-based programs that were eligible for the provider outcomes substudy were invited to participate in training and to complete baseline and one-year follow-up surveys; 117 case managers (N=59, RS; N=58, CEP) from 52 programs completed follow-up. Primary outcomes were time spent providing services in community settings and use of depression case management and problem-solving practices. Secondary outcomes were depression knowledge and attitudes and perceived system barriers. RESULTS: CEP case managers had greater participation in depression training, spent more time providing services in community settings, and used more problem-solving therapeutic approaches compared with RS case managers (p<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Training participation, time spent providing services in community settings, and use of problem-solving skills among primarily unlicensed, racially and ethnically diverse case managers were greater in programs that used CEP rather than RS to implement depression care QI, suggesting that CEP offers a model for including case managers in communitywide depression care improvement efforts.