Barriers to mental health treatment: results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to examine barriers to initiation and continuation of treatment among individuals with common mental disorders in the US general population. METHOD: Respondents in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication with common 12-month DSM-IV mood, anxiety, substance, impulse control and childhood disorders were asked about perceived need for treatment, structural barriers and attitudinal/evaluative barriers to initiation and continuation of treatment. RESULTS: Low perceived need was reported by 44.8% of respondents with a disorder who did not seek treatment. Desire to handle the problem on one's own was the most common reason among respondents with perceived need both for not seeking treatment (72.6%) and for dropping out of treatment (42.2%). Attitudinal/evaluative factors were much more important than structural barriers both to initiating (97.4% v. 22.2%) and to continuing (81.9% v. 31.8%) of treatment. Reasons for not seeking treatment varied with illness severity. Low perceived need was a more common reason for not seeking treatment among individuals with mild (57.0%) than moderate (39.3%) or severe (25.9%) disorders, whereas structural and attitudinal/evaluative barriers were more common among respondents with more severe conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Low perceived need and attitudinal/evaluative barriers are the major barriers to treatment seeking and staying in treatment among individuals with common mental disorders. Efforts to increase treatment seeking and reduce treatment drop-out need to take these barriers into consideration as well as to recognize that barriers differ as a function of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.

Two-year effects of quality improvement programs on medication management for depression.

BACKGROUND: Significant underuse of evidence-based treatments for depression persists in primary care. We examined the effects of 2 primary care-based quality improvement (QI) programs on medication management for depression. METHODS: A total of 1356 patients with depressive symptoms (60% with depressive disorders and 40% with subthreshold depression) from 46 primary care practices in 6 nonacademic managed care organizations were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of QI for depression. Clinics were randomized to usual care or to 1 of 2 QI programs that involved training of local experts who worked with patients' regular primary care providers (physicians and nurse practitioners) to improve care for depression. In the QI-medications program, depression nurse specialists provided patient education and assessment and followed up patients taking antidepressants for up to 12 months. In the QI-therapy program, depression nurse specialists provided patient education, assessment, and referral to study-trained psychotherapists. RESULTS: Participants enrolled in both QI programs had significantly higher rates of antidepressant use than those in the usual care group during the initial 6 months of the study (52% in the QI-medications group, 40% in the QI-therapy group, and 33% in the usual care group). Patients in the QI-medications group had higher rates of antidepressant use and a reduction in long-term use of minor tranquilizers for up to 2 years, compared with patients in the QI-therapy or usual care group. CONCLUSIONS: Quality improvement programs for depression in which mental health specialists collaborate with primary care providers can substantially increase rates of antidepressant treatment. Active follow-up by a depression nurse specialist in the QI-medications program was associated with longer-term increases in antidepressant use than in the QI model without such follow-up.

Can utility-weighted health-related quality-of-life estimates capture health effects of quality improvement for depression?

BACKGROUND: Utility methods that are responsive to changes in desirable outcomes are needed for cost-effectiveness (CE) analyses and to help in decisions about resource allocation. OBJECTIVES: Evaluated is the responsiveness of different methods that assign utility weights to subsets of SF-36 items to average improvements in health resulting from quality improvement (QI) interventions for depression. DESIGN: A group level, randomized, control trial in 46 primary care clinics in six managed care organizations. Clinics were randomized to one of two QI interventions or usual care. SUBJECTS: One thousand one hundred thirty-six patients with current depressive symptoms and either 12-month, lifetime, or no depressive disorder identified through screening 27,332 consecutive patients. MEASURES: Utility weighted SF-12 or SF-36 measures, probable depression, and physical and mental health-related quality of life scores. RESULTS: Several utility-weighted measures showed increases in utility values for patients in one of the interventions, relative to usual care, that paralleled the improved health effects for depression and emotional well being. However, QALY gains were small. Directly elicited utility values showed a paradoxical result of lower utility during the first year of the study for intervention patients relative to controls. CONCLUSIONS: The results raise concerns about the use of direct single-item utility measures or utility measures derived from generic health status measures in effectiveness studies for depression. Choice of measure may lead to different conclusions about the benefit and CE of treatment. Utility measures that capture the mental health and non-health outcomes associated with treatment for depression are needed.

Effects of cost-containment strategies within managed care on continuity of the relationship between patients with depression and their primary care providers.

BACKGROUND: Continuity of the relationship between patients and primary care providers (PCPs) is an important component of care from the consumer perspective that may be affected by variation in cost containment strategies within managed care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of cost containment strategies on the continuity of the relationship between their patients with depression and their PCPs. DESIGN: Observational analysis of a 2-year panel of depressed patients who participated in a quality improvement intervention trial in 46 managed care practices. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand two hundred four patients with current depression who enrolled in a longitudinal study, completed the baseline survey, and were followed for 2 years. MAIN MEASURES: The dependent variable is probability of continuing the relationship between patients and their PCPs; explanatory variables include individual patient mental health benefits and cost-sharing, individual provider financial incentives, supply-side managed care policies, and patient ratings of the care received. RESULTS: The average duration of the patient-PCP relationship was significantly longer among depressed patients who initially had less generous benefits for specialty care (higher copays, P = 0.02 and fewer visits covered, P = 0.002) and for patients whose PCPs received a performance-based salary bonus from a risk pool (P = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: For depressed patients, cost containment strategies, such as limits on specialty benefits and presence of clinician bonus payments typically used within managed care may increase, rather than decrease, PCP continuity. Whether increased PCP continuity is a desirable outcome depends on whether health care systems can provide high quality primary care and this merits further study.

Can quality improvement programs for depression in primary care address patient preferences for treatment?

BACKGROUND: Depression is common in primary care, but rates of adequate care are low. Little is known about the role of patient treatment preferences in encouraging entry into care. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether a primary care based depression quality improvement (QI) intervention designed to accommodate patient and provider treatment choice increases the likelihood that patients enter depression treatment and receive preferred treatment. METHODS: In 46 primary care clinics, patients with current depressive symptoms and either lifetime or current depressive disorder were identified through screening. Treatment preferences, patient characteristics, and use of depression treatments were assessed at baseline and 6 months by patient self-report. Matched clinics were randomized to usual care (UC) or 1 of 2 QI interventions. Data were analyzed using logistic regression models. RESULTS: For patients not in care at baseline, the QI interventions increased rates of entry into depression treatment compared with usual care (adjusted percentage: 50.0% +/- 5.3 and 33.0% +/- 4.9 for interventions vs. 15.9% +/- 3.6 for usual care; F = 12.973, P <0.0001). Patients in intervention clinics were more likely to get treatments they preferred compared with those in usual care (adjusted percentage: 54.2% +/- 3.3 and 50.7% +/- 3.1 for interventions vs. 40.5% +/- 3.1 for usual care; F = 6.034, P <0.003); however, in all clinics less than half of patients preferring counseling reported receiving it. CONCLUSIONS: QI interventions that support patient choice can improve the likelihood of patients receiving preferred treatments. Patient treatment preference appears to be related to likelihood of entering depression treatment, and patients preferring counseling may require additional interventions to enhance entry into treatment.

Affective disorders in children and adolescents: addressing unmet need in primary care settings.

Affective disorders are common among children and adolescents but may often remain untreated. Primary care providers could help fill this gap because most children have primary care. Yet rates of detection and treatment for mental disorders generally are low in general health settings, owing to multiple child and family, clinician, practice, and healthcare system factors. Potential solutions may involve 1) more systematic implementation of programs that offer coverage for uninsured children; 2) tougher parity laws that offer equity in defined benefits and application of managed care strategies across physical and mental disorders; and 3) widespread implementation of quality improvement programs within primary care settings that enhance specialty/primary care collaboration, support use of care managers to coordinate care, and provide clinician training in clinically and developmentally appropriate principles of care for affective disorders. Research is needed to support development of these solutions and evaluation of their impacts.

Quality improvement for depression enhances long-term treatment knowledge for primary care clinicians.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the effect of implementing quality improvement (QI) programs for depression, relative to usual care, on primary care clinicians' knowledge about treatment. DESIGN AND METHODS: Matched primary care clinics (46) from seven managed care organizations were randomized to usual care (mailed written guidelines only) versus one of two QI interventions. Self-report surveys assessed clinicians' knowledge of depression treatments prior to full implementation (June 1996 to March 1997) and 18 months later. We used an intent-to-treat analysis to examine intervention effects on change in knowledge, controlling for clinician and practice characteristics, and the nested design. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred eighty-one primary care clinicians. INTERVENTIONS: The interventions included institutional commitment to QI, training local experts, clinician education, and training nurses for patient assessment and education. One intervention had resources for nurse follow-up on medication use (QI-meds) and the other had reduced copayment for therapy from trained, local therapists (QI-therapy). RESULTS: Clinicians in the intervention group had greater increases compared with clinicians in the usual care group over 18 months in knowledge of psychotherapy (by 20% for QI-meds, P =.04 and by 33% for QI-therapy, P =.004), but there were no significant increases in medication knowledge. Significant increases in knowledge scores (P =.01) were demonstrated by QI-therapy clinicians but not clinicians in the QI-meds group. Clinicians were exposed to multiple intervention components. CONCLUSIONS: Dissemination of QI programs for depression in managed, primary care practices improved clinicians' treatment knowledge over 18 months, but breadth of learning was somewhat greater for a program that also included active collaboration with local therapists.

General medical and specialty mental health service use for major depression.

OBJECTIVE: While major depression is common, many depressed persons receive, at best, inadequate treatment. A first step in remedying inadequate detection and treatment of major depression requires understanding the pathways into treatment-from situations of no care, to disease recognition, to referral and appropriate treatment-as well as identifying factors associated with movement between these several stages. METHODS: Using the Epidemiologic Catchment Area sample, we identified factors associated with treatment in the general medical or mental health specialist section, or no treatment in a subsample of individuals with current major depression. RESULTS: Strikingly, one-fourth of the sample received no services, over half received care in the general medical sector, and only one-fifth accessed a mental health specialist. Among those receiving any health services (general or mental), men and respondents reporting suicidal symptoms were at risk of receiving no care, while perceived poor health and a cluster of core depressive symptoms were associated with increased odds of service use (general or mental). Among respondents receiving general medical services, perceived poor health, core depressive symptoms, a history of depression, and comorbid mental conditions increased the odds of treatment in the specialty mental health sector. CONCLUSIONS: The findings emphasize the need for public health initiatives to 1) improve detection and movement into treatment among those at risk of receiving no care; and 2) insure that, once within the health care system, the processes of primary care treatment and specialty referrals conform to evidence-based treatment guidelines.

Treatment preferences among depressed primary care patients.

OBJECTIVE: To understand patient factors that may affect the probability of receiving appropriate depression treatment, we examined treatment preferences and their predictors among depressed primary care patients. DESIGN: Patient questionnaires and interviews. SETTING: Forty-six primary care clinics in 7 geographic regions of the United States. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand one hundred eighty-seven English- and Spanish-speaking primary care patients with current depressive symptoms. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Depressive symptoms and diagnoses were determined by the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) and the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). Treatment preferences and characteristics were assessed using a self-administered questionnaire and a telephone interview. Nine hundred eight-one (83%) patients desired treatment for depression. Those who preferred treatment were wealthier (odds ratio [OR], 3.7; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.8 to 7.9; P =.001) and had greater knowledge about antidepressant medication ( OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.6 to 4.4; P

Community effects on access to behavioral health care.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the effects of community-level factors on access to any behavioral health care and specialty behavioral health care. DATA: Healthcare for Communities household survey data, merged to supplemental data from the 1990 Census Area Resource File, 1995 U.S. Census Bureau Small Area Estimates, and 1994 HMO enrollment data. STUDY DESIGN: We use a random intercept model to estimate the influences of community-level factors on access to any outpatient care, any behavioral health care conditional on having received outpatient care, and any specialty behavioral health care conditional on having received behavioral health care. DATA COLLECTION: HCC data were collected in 1997 from about 10,000 households nationwide but clustered in 60 sites. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Individuals in areas with greater HMO presence have better overall access to care, which in turn affects access to behavioral health care; individuals in poorer communities have less access to specialty care compared to individuals in wealthier communities. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings of lower access to specialty care among those in poor communities raises concerns about the appropriateness and quality of the behavioral health care they are receiving. More generally, the findings suggest the importance of considering the current status and expected evolution of HMO penetration and the income level in a community when devising health care policy.

Depression and health-related quality of life in ethnic minorities seeking care in general medical settings.

BACKGROUND: To examine ethnic groups differences in (a) prevalence of depressive disorders and (b) health related quality of life in fee-for-service and managed care patients (n=21504) seeking care in general medical settings. METHODS: Data are from the Medical Outcomes Study, a multi-site observational study of outpatient practices. The study screened patients of clinicians (family practice, internal medicine, cardiology, diabetology and endocrinology) for four chronic medical conditions; depression, coronary heart disease, hypertension and diabetes. A brief eight-item depression screener followed by the Diagnostic Interview Schedule-Depression Section (DIS) for screener positives identified depressed patients (n=2195). The Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) assessed health-related quality of life. Patient self-report determined ethnicity. RESULTS: Before adjusting for demographic factors, African-Americans and Hispanics had highest rates of depressive symptoms. Asian-Americans had the lowest. After adjusting for demographics (particularly gender and income), we found few statistically significant differences in prevalence or severity of depression. However, among the depressed, Whites were the most, and African-Americans the least likely to report suicidal ideation (p<0. 01), and Hispanics and Whites were more likely to have melancholia (p<0.01). African-Americans reported the poorest quality of life. LIMITATIONS: DSM III criteria (though few changes in DSM IV), and relatively small sample size of Asian-Americans compared to other groups. CONCLUSIONS: Gender and socioeconomic status are more significant factors than ethnicity in determining risk for depressive disorder. However, ethnic differences in symptom presentation, and health-related quality of life could have clinical and social consequences, and merit further study.

Impact of disseminating quality improvement programs for depression in managed primary care: a randomized controlled trial.

CONTEXT: Care of patients with depression in managed primary care settings often fails to meet guideline standards, but the long-term impact of quality improvement (QI) programs for depression care in such settings is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine if QI programs in managed care practices for depressed primary care patients improve quality of care, health outcomes, and employment. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial initiated from June 1996 to March 1997. SETTING: Forty-six primary care clinics in 6 US managed care organizations. PARTICIPANTS: Of 27332 consecutively screened patients, 1356 with current depressive symptoms and either 12-month, lifetime, or no depressive disorder were enrolled. INTERVENTIONS: Matched clinics were randomized to usual care (mailing of practice guidelines) or to 1 of 2 QI programs that involved institutional commitment to QI, training local experts and nurse specialists to provide clinician and patient education, identification of a pool of potentially depressed patients, and either nurses for medication follow-up or access to trained psychotherapists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Process of care (use of antidepressant medication, mental health specialty counseling visits, medical visits for mental health problems, any medical visits), health outcomes (probable depression and health-related quality of life [HRQOL]), and employment at baseline and at 6- and 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: Patients in QI (n = 913) and control (n = 443) clinics did not differ significantly at baseline in service use, HRQOL, or employment after nonresponse weighting. At 6 months, 50.9% of QI patients and 39.7% of controls had counseling or used antidepressant medication at an appropriate dosage (P<.001), with a similar pattern at 12 months (59.2% vs 50.1%; P = .006). There were no differences in probability of having any medical visit at any point (each P > or = .21). At 6 months, 47.5% of QI patients and 36.6% of controls had a medical visit for mental health problems (P = .001), and QI patients were more likely to see a mental health specialist at 6 months (39.8% vs 27.2%; P<.001) and at 12 months (29.1% vs 22.7%; P = .03). At 6 months, 39.9% of QI patients and 49.9% of controls still met criteria for probable depressive disorder (P = .001), with a similar pattern at 12 months (41.6% vs 51.2%; P = .005). Initially employed QI patients were more likely to be working at 12 months relative to controls (P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: When these managed primary care practices implemented QI programs that improve opportunities for depression treatment without mandating it, quality of care, mental health outcomes, and retention of employment of depressed patients improved over a year, while medical visits did not increase overall.

Quality of care for primary care patients with depression in managed care.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the process and quality of care for primary care patients with depression under managed care organizations. METHOD: Surveys of 1204 outpatients with depression at the time of and after a visit to 1 of 181 primary care clinicians from 46 primary care clinics in 7 managed care organizations. Patients had depressive symptoms in the previous 30 days, with or without a 12-month depressive disorder by diagnostic interview. Process indicators were depression counseling, mental health referral, or psychotropic medication management at index visit and the use of appropriate antidepressant medication during the last 6 months. RESULTS: Of patients with depressive disorder and recent symptoms, 29% to 43% reported a depression-specific process of care in the index visit, and 35% to 42% used antidepressant medication in appropriate dosages in the prior 6 months. Patients with depressive disorders rather than symptoms only and those with comorbid anxiety had higher rates of depression-specific processes and quality of care (P < .005). Recurrent depression, suicidal ideation, and alcohol abuse were not uniquely associated with such rates. Patients visiting for old problems or checkups received more depression-specific care than those with new problems or unscheduled visits. The 7 managed care organizations varied by a factor of 2-fold in rates of depression counseling and appropriate anti-depressant use. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of process and quality of care for depression as reported by patients are moderate to low in managed primary care practices. Such rates are higher for patients with more severe forms of depression or with comorbid anxiety, but not for those with severe but "silent" symptoms like suicide ideation. Visit context factors, such as whether the visit is scheduled, affect rates of depression-specific care. Rates of care for depression are highly variable among managed care organizations, emphasizing the need for process monitoring and quality improvement for depression at the organizational level.

Functioning and utility for current health of patients with depression or chronic medical conditions in managed, primary care practices.

BACKGROUND: Health utility is the recommended outcome metric for medical cost-effectiveness studies. We compared health utility and quality of life for primary care patients with depression or chronic medical conditions. METHODS: Respondents were outpatients (N = 17 558) of primary care clinicians (N = 181) in 7 managed care organizations. Utility was assessed by time tradeoff, or the years of life that patients would exchange for perfect health, and standard gamble, or the required chance of success to accept a treatment that can cause immediate death or survival in perfect health. Probable 12-month depressive disorder and affective syndromes were assessed through self-report items from a diagnostic interview. Medical conditions were assessed with self-report. Quality of life was assessed by the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey. Regression models were used to compare quality of life and utility for patients with depression vs chronic medical conditions. RESULTS: Patients with probable 12-month depressive disorder had worse mental health and role-emotional and social functioning and lower utility for their current health than patients with each chronic medical condition (for most comparisons, P<.001). Depressed patients had worse physical functioning than patients with 4 common chronic conditions but better physical functioning than patients with 4 other conditions (each P<.001). Patients with lifetime bipolar illness and 12-month double depression had the poorest quality of life and lowest utility. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care patients with depressive conditions have poorer mental, role-emotional, and social functioning than patients with common chronic medical conditions, and physical functioning in the midrange. The low utility of depressed patients relative to patients with chronic medical conditions suggests that recovery from depression should be a high practice priority.

Evidence-based care for depression in managed primary care practices.

This paper evaluates whether externally designed, evidence-based interventions for improving care for depression can be locally implemented in managed care organizations. The interventions were carried out as part of a randomized trial involving forty-six practices within six diverse, nonacademic managed care plans. Based on evaluation of adherence to the intervention protocol, we determined that local practice leaders are able to implement predesigned interventions for improving depression care. Adherence rates for most key intervention activities were above 70 percent, and many were near 100 percent. Three intervention activities fell short of the goal of 70 percent implementation and should be targets for future improvement.

The design of Healthcare for Communities: a study of health care delivery for alcohol, drug abuse, and mental health conditions.

There is a shortage of data to inform policy debates about the quickly changing health care system. This paper describes Healthcare for Communities (HCC), a component of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Health Tracking Initiative that was designed to fill this gap for alcohol, drug abuse, and mental health care. HCC bridges clinical perspectives and economic/policy research approaches, links data at market, service delivery, and individual levels, and features a household survey of nearly 9,600 individuals with an employer follow-back survey. Public use files will be available in late 1999.

Termination of social security benefits among Los Angeles recipients disabled by substance abuse.

OBJECTIVES: Although a 1996 federal law terminated Social Security disability benefits to individuals disabled primarily by drug addiction and alcoholism, many were expected to successfully appeal for recertification based on mental illness. This study examined appeal and recertification in Los Angeles County. METHODS: Data for 2,001 persons receiving Social Security disability benefits in 1996 because of substance abuse disability were obtained from the referral and monitoring agency, where each person had completed the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) during an initial visit in the past two years. Administrative data were obtained from the Social Security Administration. Severity of psychiatric symptoms--low, medium, or high--was based on the composite score on the ASI psychiatric subscale. Logistic regression analyses examined the relationship between severity and appeal and recertification status. RESULTS: Fifty-one percent of the subjects scored in the medium- or high-severity range. Appeals were made by 80 percent of the 506 recipients with high scores, 72 percent of the 510 recipients with medium scores, and 74 percent of the 985 recipients with low scores. Recertification rates were 60 percent, 45 percent, and 47 percent, respectively. Compared with recipients who had low scores, those with high scores were more likely to appeal and to be recertified. However, benefits were terminated for 51 percent of recipients with high scores, including all those who did not appeal. CONCLUSIONS: Many recipients of Social Security disability benefits with comorbid psychiatric problems lost benefits either because they did not appeal or because their appeal was denied.

The design of Partners in Care: evaluating the cost-effectiveness of improving care for depression in primary care.

This paper describes a study design that blends health services and clinical research approaches to examine the cost-effectiveness of treatments and of quality improvement for depression in primary care, managed care practices. Six managed care organizations in Los Angeles (Calif.), San Antonio (Tex.), San Luis Valley (Colo.), Twin Cities (Minn.), and Columbia (Md.) participated. Primary care clinics were randomized to one of two quality improvement interventions or care as usual. Interventions included patient and provider education, nurse-assisted patient assessment, and resources to support appropriate medication management or access to cognitive behavioral therapy. Practices implemented the interventions with study support. Providers and patients selected treatment. Patients with depressive symptoms regardless of comorbidities were eligible. Over 27,000 primary care patients visiting the practices of 181 primary care clinicians were screened for depression, 14% were potentially eligible, and 1356 enrolled into the 2-year longitudinal study. Enrollees were similar to eligibles, but usual care clinic patients tended to be less severely depressed than intervention clinic patients, partly due to clinic staff enthusiasm. The result of the study showed that studying treatment effects and quality improvement in nonacademic settings is feasible, but requires relaxation of design features of experiments that protect internal validity. The trade-off between certainty of causal inference and generalizability to usual care conditions is discussed. The strengths and limitations of this study design are compared to those of clinical trials and recent clinical effectiveness studies.

Treating depression in staff-model versus network-model managed care organizations.

OBJECTIVE: To compare primary care providers' depression-related knowledge, attitudes, and practices and to understand how these reports vary for providers in staff or group-model managed care organizations (MCOs) compared with network-model MCOs including independent practice associations and preferred provider organizations. DESIGN: Survey of primary care providers' depression-related practices in 1996. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We surveyed 410 providers, from 80 outpatient clinics, in 11 MCOs participating in four studies designed to improve the quality of depression care in primary care. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We measured knowledge based on depression guidelines, attitudes (beliefs about burden, skill, and barriers) related to depression, and reported behavior. Providers in both types of MCO are equally knowledgeable about treating depression (better knowledge of pharmacologic than psychotherapeutic treatments) and perceive equivalent skills in treating depression. However, compared with network-model providers, staff/group-model providers have stronger beliefs that treating depression is burdensome to their practice. While more staff/group-model providers reported time limitations as a barrier to optimal depression treatment, more network-model providers reported limited access to mental health specialty referral as a barrier. Accordingly, these staff/group-model providers are more likely to treat patients with major depression through referral (51% vs 38%) or to assess but not treat (17% vs 7%), and network-model providers are more likely to prescribe antidepressants (57% vs 6%) as first-line treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas the providers from staff/group-model MCOs had greater access to and relied more on referral, the providers from network-model organizations were more likely to treat depression themselves. Given varying attitudes and behaviors, improving primary care for the treatment of depression will require unique strategies beyond enhancing technical knowledge for the two types of MCOs.

Treatment research at the crossroads: the scientific interface of clinical trials and effectiveness research.

OBJECTIVE: Policy and clinical management decisions depend on data on the health and cost impacts of psychiatric treatments under usual care, i.e., effectiveness. Clinical trials, however, provide information on treatment efficacy under best-practice conditions. An understanding of the design, analysis, and conventions of both efficacy and effectiveness studies can lead to research that better informs clinical and societal questions. METHOD: This paper contrasts the strengths and limitations of clinical trials and effectiveness studies for addressing policy and clinical decisions. These research approaches are assessed in terms of outcomes, treatments, service delivery context, implementation conventions, and validity. RESULTS: Clinical trials and effectiveness research share problems of internal and external validity despite more attention to internal validity in clinical trials (e.g., randomization, blinding, standardized protocols) and to external validity in effectiveness studies (e.g., community-based treatments, representative samples). CONCLUSIONS: To develop research at the interface of clinical trials and effectiveness studies, research goals must be redefined, and methods, such as cost-utility and econometric analyses, must be shared and developed. Development of hybrid designs that combine features of efficacy and effectiveness research will require separation of conventions such as frequency of follow-up, intensity of measurement, and sample size from the central scientific issues of aims and validity.