Comparative Effectiveness of Coalitions Versus Technical Assistance for Depression Quality Improvement in Persons with Multiple Chronic Conditions.

Significance: Prior research suggests that Community Engagement and Planning (CEP) for coalition support compared with Resources for Services (RS) for program technical assistance to implement depression quality improvement programs improves 6- and 12-month client mental-health related quality of life (MHRQL); however, effects for clients with multiple chronic medical conditions (MCC) are unknown. Objective: To explore effectiveness of CEP vs RS in MCC and non-MCC subgroups. Design: Secondary analyses of a cluster-randomized trial. Setting: 93 health care and community-based programs in two neighborhoods. Participants: Of 4,440 clients screened, 1,322 depressed (Patient Health Questionnaire, PHQ8) provided contact information, 1,246 enrolled and 1,018 (548 with ≥3 MCC) completed baseline, 6- or 12-month surveys. Intervention: CEP or RS for implementing depression quality improvement programs. Outcomes and Analyses: Primary: depression (PHQ9 <10), poor MHRQL (Short Form Health Survey, SF-12<40); Secondary: mental wellness, good physical health, behavioral health hospitalization, chronic homelessness risk, work/workloss days, services use at 6 and 12 months. End-point regressions were used to estimate intervention effects on outcomes for subgroups with ≥3 MCC, non-MCC, and intervention-by-MCC interactions (exploratory). Results: Among MCC clients at 6 months, CEP vs RS lowered likelihoods of depression and poor MHRQL; increased likelihood of mental wellness; reduced work-loss days among employed and likelihoods of ≥4 behavioral-health hospitalization nights and chronic homelessness risk, while increasing faith-based and park community center depression services; and at 12 months, likelihood of good physical health and park community center depression services use (each P<.05). There were no significant interactions or primary outcome effects for non-MCC. Conclusions: CEP was more effective than RS in improving 6-month primary outcomes among depressed MCC clients, without significant interactions.

Idioms of Distress Among Depressed White-Non-Mexican and Mexican-Origin Older Men.

Older men are less likely than older women to receive depression treatment. Latino older men in particular have been found to have significantly lower rates of depression treatment than their white-non-Mexican (WNM) counterparts. Prior research has shown that men are less likely than women to express overt affect and/or report depression symptoms that may prompt primary care physicians' inquiry about depression. Previous studies have overlooked the idioms of distress common among older men. This study investigates: a) the range of idioms of distress that emerge in the narratives of depressed older men, and b) the use of these idioms among depressed WNM and Mexican-origin older men. The present report is based on qualitative data collected through the Men's Health and Aging Study (MeHAS), a mixed-method study of clinically depressed WNM and Mexican-origin older (65 and above) men recruited in primary care settings. Qualitative analysis of 77 interviews led to identification of idioms of distress and informed idiom categories. Study findings show that: a) both groups of men utilized a range of idioms of distress that met current DSM criteria for depression, b) both groups were also likely to utilize idioms that feel outside clinical depression criteria, and c) there were similarities as well as differences between WNM and Mexican-origin men. This study provides a larger vocabulary that clinicians might consider in recognizing depression and initiating depression care for older men from diverse ethnic backgrounds. This is important to improve depression care among older men in general and those of Mexican-origin in particular.

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.

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.

Influence of patient preference and primary care clinician proclivity for watchful waiting on receipt of depression treatment.

OBJECTIVE: We examined whether patients' preference for watchful waiting and their primary care clinician's proclivity for watchful waiting were associated with decreased likelihood of receiving depression treatment. METHODS: In a quality improvement intervention for depression in primary care, patients with depressive symptoms were identified through screening in 46 clinics from June 1996 to March 1997. We analyzed baseline survey data completed by clinicians and patients using logistic regression models. RESULTS: Of 1140 patients, 179 (16%) preferred watchful waiting over active treatment. After controlling for covariates, patients with depressive disorders who preferred watchful waiting were less likely to report use of antidepressants (OR=0.86, 95% CI=0.77-0.95). Among patients with depressive symptoms only, those who preferred watchful waiting were less likely to report antidepressant use (OR=0.84, 95% CI=0.76-0.93) or counseling (OR=0.84, 95% CI=0.77-0.95). Patients with less knowledge about depression were less likely to receive depression treatment. Clinician proclivity for watchful waiting was not associated with the likelihood that patients received depression treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Patient preference for watchful waiting is associated with lower rates of some depression treatments, especially among patients with subsyndromal depression. Addressing patient preference for watchful waiting in primary care may include active symptom monitoring and patient education.

The partners in care approach to ethics outcomes in quality improvement programs for depression.

OBJECTIVE: Patient centeredness and equity are major quality goals, but little is known about how these goals are affected by efforts to improve the quality of care. The authors describe an approach to addressing these goals in a randomized trial of quality improvement for depressed primary care patients. METHODS: For four ethics goals (autonomy, distributive justice, beneficence, and avoiding harm), the authors identify intervention features, study measures, and hypotheses implemented in Partners in Care, a randomized trial of two quality improvement interventions, relative to usual care and summarize published findings pertinent to these outcomes. RESULTS: To implement an ethics framework, modifications were required in study design and in measures and analysis plans, particularly to address the autonomy and justice goals. Extra resources were needed for sample recruitment, for intervention and survey materials, and to fund an ethics coinvestigator. The interventions were associated with improvements in all four ethics areas. Patients who received the interventions were significantly more likely to receive the treatment they had indicated at baseline as their preferred treatment (autonomy goal). Intervention-associated benefits occurred more rapidly among sicker patients and extended to patients from ethnic minority groups, resulting in a reduction in ethnic-group disparities in health outcomes relative to usual care (distributive justice goal). The interventions were associated with improved quality of care and health outcomes (beneficence goal) and with reduced use of long-term minor tranquilizers (goal of avoiding harm). CONCLUSION: S: It is feasible to explicitly address ethics outcomes in quality improvement programs for depression, but substantial marginal resources may be required. Nevertheless, interventions so modified can increase a practice's ability to realize ethics goals.

Encouraging patients with depressive symptoms to seek care: a mixed methods approach to message development.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the message preferences of individuals affected by depression as part of a project that will evaluate interventions to encourage at-risk patients to talk to their physicians about depression. METHODS: Adaptive Conjoint Analysis (ACA) of 32 messages defined by 10 message attributes. Messages were developed based on input from three focus groups comprised of individuals with a personal and/or family history of depression, then tested using volunteers from an Internet health community. In an online conjoint survey, 249 respondents with depression rated their liking of the messages constructed for each attribute. They were then presented with two message sets and rated their preferences. Preference utilities were generated using hierarchical Bayes estimation. RESULTS: The optimal communication approach described both psychological and physical symptoms of depression, recognized multiple treatment options, offered lifetime prevalence data, noted that depression can affect anyone, and acknowledged that finding an effective treatment can take time. CONCLUSION: Individuals with depression respond differently to depression care messages, underscoring the need for careful message development and evaluation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: ACA, used in conjunction with focus groups, is a promising approach for developing and testing messages in the formative research stage of intervention development.