Exploring Asian American attitudes regarding mental health treatment in primary care: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: In this exploratory study, we examined attitudes regarding mental health treatment among 10 Asian American patients in an urban primary care setting to better understand contextual barriers to care. METHODS: Ten semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with Asian Americans recruited from primary care practices in an urban medical center. RESULTS: The study's qualitative data suggest that focusing on specific cultural concerns is essential for increasing mental health access for Asian Americans. Although few participants initially expressed interest in a culturally focused mental health program themselves, when phrased as being part of their primary care practice, 8 expressed interest. Furthermore, most felt that the program could help family or friends. Many participants preferred to seek care initially from social systems and alternative and complementary medicine before seeking psychiatric care. CONCLUSIONS: Because Asian Americans face notable barriers to seeking mental health treatment, addressing cultural concerns by providing culturally sensitive care could help make mental health treatment more acceptable, particularly among less acculturated individuals. To our knowledge, this is the first qualitative study exploring barriers to Asian Americans accessing integrated mental health services in primary care.

Treatment Outcome in Depressed Latinos Predicted by Concomitant Psychosislike Symptoms.

We compared treatment response (≥50 decrease in Nine-Item Patient Health Questionnaire total score) among 24 Latinos with major depressive disorder, presenting with and without specific psychosislike symptoms: A, hearing noises or house sounds, B, hearing voices calling one's name, C, seeing fleeting visions such as shadows, and D, symptoms more likely to be truly psychotic (e.g., poorly defined and short-lasting voices [other than B], fleeting paranoid ideation, or fleeting ideas of reference). 18 subjects (75%) endorsed symptoms of cluster A, 12 (50%) of cluster B, 10 (31%) of cluster C, and 12 (50%) of cluster D. Only subjects who reported symptoms from the D cluster exhibited significantly unfavorable depressive outcomes (compared to those with absence of D symptoms). The authors propose a phenomenological differentiation between benign psychosislike symptoms (clusters A-C) and the expression of the psychotic continuum (cluster D) in depressed Latinos.

A Pilot, Randomized Controlled Study of Tai Chi With Passive and Active Controls in the Treatment of Depressed Chinese Americans.

OBJECTIVE: This pilot, randomized clinical trial investigates the effectiveness of tai chi as the primary treatment for Chinese Americans with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: 67 Chinese Americans with DSM-IV MDD and no treatment for depression were recruited between March 2012 and April 2013 and randomized (1:1:1) into a tai chi intervention, an education program, or a waitlisted group for 12 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS17); positive response for this outcome was defined as a decrease in total score of 50% or more, and remission was defined as HDRS17 ≤ 7. RESULTS: Participants (N = 67) were 72% female with a mean age of 54 ± 13 years. No serious adverse events were reported. After the end of the 12-week intervention, response rates were 25%, 21%, and 56%, and remission rates were 10%, 21%, and 50% for the waitlisted, education, and tai chi intervention groups, respectively. The tai chi group showed improved treatment response when compared to both the waitlisted group (odds ratio [OR] = 2.11; 95% CI, 1.01-4.46) and to the education group (OR = 8.90; 95% CI, 1.17-67.70). Tai chi intervention showed significantly improved remission rate over the waitlisted group (OR = 3.01; 95% CI, 1.25-7.10), and a trend of improved remission compared to the education group (OR = 4.40; 95% CI, 0.78-24.17). CONCLUSIONS: As the primary treatment, tai chi improved treatment outcomes for Chinese Americans with MDD over both passive and active control groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01619631.

A placebo-controlled crossover study of iloperidone augmentation for residual anger and irritability in major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Even when patients experience remission with antidepressants, many continue to report anger attacks and excessive irritability despite continued treatment. Iloperidone antagonizes 5-HT-2a, D2, and alpha-1 receptors, which can have anti-aggressive effects. We examined iloperidone's safety and efficacy as an augmentation agent in outpatients with partially remitted major depressive disorder (MDD) with residual symptoms of anger and irritability. METHODS: A total of 13 outpatients with partially remitted MDD [currently treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)] received four weeks of iloperidone or placebo, followed by one week of washout. Patients were then crossed over to the other treatment arm for 4 weeks. Treatment arms were randomized and double blind; and two sites were used for the study. Analyses compared treatment response using the Symptom Questionnaire (SQ) Anger/Hostility Subscale as the primary outcome measure. RESULTS: There was no significant differential effect of iloperidone × weeks on the SQ Anger/Hostility Subscore over the course of the study, compared with placebo × weeks, regardless of administration order (p = 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Iloperidone did not significantly outperform placebo on measures of anger or irritability in patients with partially remitted MDD and residual anger/irritability.

Association between physician beliefs regarding assigned treatment and clinical response: re-analysis of data from the Hypericum Depression Trial Study Group.

BACKGROUND: We have previously shown an association between patient belief and treatment response in the Hypericum Depression Trial Study Group's 2002 study. We re-examined these data to determine whether clinical improvement was associated with physician belief about assigned therapy. METHODS: Three hundred and forty adults with major depression and baseline scores ≥20 on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Scale (HDRS-17) were randomized to Hypericum 900-1500mg/day, sertraline 50-100mg/day, or placebo for 8 weeks. At week 8, physicians guessed their patients' treatment. We analyzed 277 subjects with at least one post-baseline visit and physician guess data. We examined association between guess and improvement in HDRS-17 and whether treatment assignment moderated the effect of belief on remission (final HDRS-17 score <8). RESULTS: Patient and doctor guesses agreed at 53% for sertraline, 68% for Hypericum, and 52% for placebo (kappa=0.37). Doctors guessed placebo correctly (38%) more than sertraline (18%) or Hypericum (19%) (p=0.001). Adverse event scores were significantly greater among subjects for which the clinicians guessed Hypericum (p<0.001) or sertraline (p=0.005) compared to placebo. Significant improvements in HDRS-17 score were found when comparing the Hypericum-guess (p<0.001) or the sertraline-guess group (p<0.001) against the placebo-guess group. Remission rates were significantly greater for subjects whose clinicians guessed sertraline (p<0.001) or Hypericum (p<0.001) versus placebo. CONCLUSION: Doctors tended to guess placebo more easily than Hypericum or sertraline, and their guesses tended to favor active therapies when improvement was more robust. Results show association but not causation, and merit more careful investigation.