Effectiveness of collaborative care in reducing suicidal ideation: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

To assess whether CC is more effective at reducing suicidal ideation in people with depression compared with usual care, and whether study and patient factors moderate treatment effects. METHOD: We searched Medline, Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, CENTRAL from inception to March 2020 for Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) that compared the effectiveness of CC with usual care in depressed adults, and reported changes in suicidal ideation at 4 to 6 months post-randomisation. Mixed-effects models accounted for clustering of participants within trials and heterogeneity across trials. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020201747. RESULTS: We extracted data from 28 RCTs (11,165 patients) of 83 eligible studies. We observed a small significant clinical improvement of CC on suicidal ideation, compared with usual care (SMD, -0.11 [95%CI, -0.15 to -0.08]; I2, 0·47% [95%CI 0.04% to 4.90%]). CC interventions with a recognised psychological treatment were associated with small reductions in suicidal ideation (SMD, -0.15 [95%CI -0.19 to -0.11]). CC was more effective for reducing suicidal ideation among patients aged over 65 years (SMD, - 0.18 [95%CI -0.25 to -0.11]). CONCLUSION: Primary care based CC with an embedded psychological intervention is the most effective CC framework for reducing suicidal ideation and older patients may benefit the most.

The role of relapse prevention for depression in collaborative care: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Relapse (the re-emergence of depression symptoms before full recovery) is common in depression and relapse prevention strategies are not well researched in primary care settings. Collaborative care is effective for treating acute phase depression but little is known about the use of relapse prevention strategies in collaborative care. We undertook a systematic review to identify and characterise relapse prevention strategies in the context of collaborative care. METHODS: We searched for Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) of collaborative care for depression. In addition to published material, we obtained provider and patient manuals from authors to provide more detail on intervention content. We reported the extent to which collaborative care interventions addressed four relapse prevention components. RESULTS: 93 RCTs were identified. 31 included a formal relapse prevention plan; 42 had proactive monitoring and follow-up after the acute phase; 39 reported strategies for optimising sustained medication adherence; and 20 of the trials reported psychological or psycho-educational treatments persisting beyond the acute phase or focussing on long-term health/relapse prevention. 30 (32.3%) did not report relapse prevention approaches. LIMITATIONS: We did not receive trial materials for approximately half of the trials, which limited our ability to identify relevant features of intervention content. CONCLUSION: Relapse is a significant risk amongst people treated for depression and interventions are needed that specifically address and minimise this risk. Given the advantages of collaborative care as a delivery system for depression care, there is scope for more consistency and increased effort to implement and evaluate relapse prevention strategies.

Impact of telephone delivered case-management on the effectiveness of collaborative care for depression and anti-depressant use: A systematic review and meta-regression.

BACKGROUND: The health service delivery framework collaborative care is an effective intervention for depression. However, uncertainties remain about how to optimise its delivery at scale. Structured case management is a core component of collaborative care; its delivery via the telephone may improve access. AIMS: To examine using meta-regression if telephone delivered case management diminishes the clinical effectiveness of collaborative care on depressive symptoms and anti-depressant use relative to face-to-face delivery methods. METHODS: Randomised controlled trials were eligible if they included collaborative care interventions for adults with depression identified using self-report measures or diagnostic interviews and reported depression outcomes. Sociodemographics, intervention characteristics, depressive symptoms, and anti-depressant use were extracted. Random effects univariable and multivariable meta-regression analyses were used to examine the moderating effect of telephone delivered case-management on outcomes. RESULTS: Ninety-four trials were identified comprising of 103 comparisons across 24, 132 participants with depression outcomes and 67 comparisons from 15,367 participants with anti-depressant use outcomes. Telephone delivered case management did not diminish the effects of collaborative care on depressive symptoms (ß = -0.01, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.10; p = 0.86). Telephone delivered case management decreased anti-depressant medication use (relative risk 0.76, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.92; p = 0.005); this effect remained when assessed simultaneously alongside other study-level moderators of collaborative care. CONCLUSION: Using remote platforms such as the telephone to deliver case management may be a feasible way to implement collaborative care with no loss of effectiveness on depressive symptoms. However, adherence to anti-depressant medication may decrease when telephone case management is used.

Association Between Chronic Physical Conditions and the Effectiveness of Collaborative Care for Depression: An Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Collaborative care is an intensive care model involving several health care professionals working together, typically a physician, a case manager, and a mental health professional. Meta-analyses of aggregate data have shown that collaborative care is particularly effective in people with depression and comorbid chronic physical conditions. However, only participant-level analyses can rigorously test whether the treatment effect is influenced by participant characteristics, such as chronic physical conditions. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the effectiveness of collaborative care for depression is moderated by the presence, type, and number of chronic physical conditions. DATA SOURCES: Data were obtained from MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL Complete, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and references from relevant systematic reviews. The search and collection of eligible studies was ongoing until May 22, 2015. STUDY SELECTION: This was an update to a previous meta-analysis. Two independent reviewers were involved in the study selection process. Randomized clinical trials that compared the effectiveness of collaborative care with usual care in adults with depression and reported measured changes in depression severity symptoms at 4 to 6 months after randomization were included in the analysis. Key search terms included depression, dysthymia, anxiety, panic, phobia, obsession, compulsion, posttraumatic, care management, case management, collaborative care, enhanced care, and managed care. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Individual participant data on baseline demographics and chronic physical conditions as well as baseline and follow-up depression severity symptoms were requested from authors of the eligible studies. One-step meta-analysis of individual participant data using appropriate mixed-effects models was performed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Continuous outcomes of depression severity symptoms measured using self-reported or observer-rated measures. RESULTS: Data sets from 31 randomized clinical trials including 36 independent comparisons (N = 10 962 participants) were analyzed. Individual participant data analyses found no significant interaction effects, indicating that the presence (interaction coefficient, 0.02 [95% CI, -0.10 to 0.13]), numbers (interaction coefficient, 0.01 [95% CI, -0.01 to 0.02]), and types of chronic physical conditions do not influence the treatment effect. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: There is evidence that collaborative care is effective for people with depression alone and also for people with depression and chronic physical conditions. Existing guidance that recommends limiting collaborative care to people with depression and physical comorbidities is not supported by this individual participant data meta-analysis.

Does collaborative care improve social functioning in adults with depression? The application of the WHO ICF framework and meta-analysis of outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Collaborative care has proven efficacy in improving symptoms of depression, yet patients value improvements in their social function also. We used the World Health Organisation's International classification of functioning, disability, and health (WHO ICF) to robustly identify measures of social function and explored whether collaborative care interventions improve social functioning using meta-analysis. METHODS: We performed a secondary data analysis on studies identified from our previous Cochrane review of collaborative care interventions for depression and search update (December 2013). The WHO ICF framework was applied to identify studies that included self-report measures of social functioning. Outcomes were extracted at short-term (6 months) and medium-term (≥7 months) and analysed using random-effects meta-analysis. The relationship between improvements in depression outcomes and improvements in social functioning was also explored using bivarable meta-regression. RESULTS: Eighteen trials were identified that measured social functioning and met our remaining inclusion criteria. Collaborative care was associated with small improvements in social functioning in the short (Standardised Mean Difference, SMD=0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.12 to 0.34) and medium term (SMD=0.19, 95% confidence interval 0.09 to 0.29). Improvements in depressive symptoms were associated with moderate improvements in social function (ß=-0.55, 95% confidence interval -0.82 to -0.28) but cross-sectionally only. LIMITATIONS: The small number of studies (N=18) prevented more complex analyses to explore moderators of social functioning outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care improves social functioning but the mechanisms through which this occurs are unknown. Future depression interventions need to consider a person's degree of social function equally alongside their depressive symptoms.

Characteristics of effective collaborative care for treatment of depression: a systematic review and meta-regression of 74 randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Collaborative care is a complex intervention based on chronic disease management models and is effective in the management of depression. However, there is still uncertainty about which components of collaborative care are effective. We used meta-regression to identify factors in collaborative care associated with improvement in patient outcomes (depressive symptoms) and the process of care (use of anti-depressant medication). METHODS AND FINDINGS: Systematic review with meta-regression. The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group trials registers were searched from inception to 9th February 2012. An update was run in the CENTRAL trials database on 29th December 2013. Inclusion criteria were: randomised controlled trials of collaborative care for adults ≥18 years with a primary diagnosis of depression or mixed anxiety and depressive disorder. Random effects meta-regression was used to estimate regression coefficients with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between study level covariates and depressive symptoms and relative risk (95% CI) and anti-depressant use. The association between anti-depressant use and improvement in depression was also explored. Seventy four trials were identified (85 comparisons, across 21,345 participants). Collaborative care that included psychological interventions predicted improvement in depression (ß coefficient -0.11, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.01, p = 0.03). Systematic identification of patients (relative risk 1.43, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.81, p = 0.004) and the presence of a chronic physical condition (relative risk 1.32, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.65, p = 0.02) predicted use of anti-depressant medication. CONCLUSION: Trials of collaborative care that included psychological treatment, with or without anti-depressant medication, appeared to improve depression more than those without psychological treatment. Trials that used systematic methods to identify patients with depression and also trials that included patients with a chronic physical condition reported improved use of anti-depressant medication. However, these findings are limited by the observational nature of meta-regression, incomplete data reporting, and the use of study aggregates.

Nurse-delivered collaborative care for depression and long-term physical conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Depression will be the second largest cause of disease burden by 2020. It is commonly associated with long term physical health conditions resulting in worsened clinical outcome and increased costs. Nurses would appear ideally placed to facilitate depression management in those people with long term health problems within health care clinics. This article reviews the evidence to support such a clinical approach. METHOD: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials of nurse led management of depression in patients with long term health problems. Databases were searched between December 2011 and May 2012, data were extracted and analysed using Comprehensive Meta Analysis software. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were used to explore the impact of study level moderators of effect. RESULTS: Nurse delivered collaborative care was compared to usual care in 14 studies including 4440 participants. The mean effect size at follow-up was d=0.43 95% CI 0.34 to 0.52 p<0.001 NNT 4.23, representing a moderate impact on depression severity. Results were consistent across studies and maintained at longer term follow up. LIMITATIONS: Data were only available on depression outcomes and with most studies being USA based generalizability is somewhat limited. To date only one study reported cost effectiveness outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Based upon the research literature nurse led depression management provides effective treatment across a range of long term health conditions. Nurses are ideally placed to deliver such interventions and further research is required to examine the cost utility of the approach and its durability outside of the USA.

Collaborative care for depression and anxiety problems.

BACKGROUND: Common mental health problems, such as depression and anxiety, are estimated to affect up to 15% of the UK population at any one time, and health care systems worldwide need to implement interventions to reduce the impact and burden of these conditions. Collaborative care is a complex intervention based on chronic disease management models that may be effective in the management of these common mental health problems. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of collaborative care for patients with depression or anxiety. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases to February 2012: The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group (CCDAN) trials registers (CCDANCTR-References and CCDANCTR-Studies) which include relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from MEDLINE (1950 to present), EMBASE (1974 to present), PsycINFO (1967 to present) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, all years); the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (ICTRP); ClinicalTrials.gov; and CINAHL (to November 2010 only). We screened the reference lists of reports of all included studies and published systematic reviews for reports of additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of collaborative care for participants of all ages with depression or anxiety. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent researchers extracted data using a standardised data extraction sheet. Two independent researchers made 'Risk of bias' assessments using criteria from The Cochrane Collaboration. We combined continuous measures of outcome using standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We combined dichotomous measures using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the results. MAIN RESULTS: We included seventy-nine RCTs (including 90 relevant comparisons) involving 24,308 participants in the review. Studies varied in terms of risk of bias.The results of primary analyses demonstrated significantly greater improvement in depression outcomes for adults with depression treated with the collaborative care model in the short-term (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.27; RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.43), medium-term (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.15; RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.48), and long-term (SMD -0.35, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.24; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.41). However, these significant benefits were not demonstrated into the very long-term (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27).The results also demonstrated significantly greater improvement in anxiety outcomes for adults with anxiety treated with the collaborative care model in the short-term (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.17; RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.87), medium-term (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.19; RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.69), and long-term (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.06; RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.42). No comparisons examined the effects of the intervention on anxiety outcomes in the very long-term.There was evidence of benefit in secondary outcomes including medication use, mental health quality of life, and patient satisfaction, although there was less evidence of benefit in physical quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care is associated with significant improvement in depression and anxiety outcomes compared with usual care, and represents a useful addition to clinical pathways for adult patients with depression and anxiety.

What work has to be done to implement collaborative care for depression? Process evaluation of a trial utilizing the Normalization Process Model.

BACKGROUND: There is a considerable evidence base for 'collaborative care' as a method to improve quality of care for depression, but an acknowledged gap between efficacy and implementation. This study utilises the Normalisation Process Model (NPM) to inform the process of implementation of collaborative care in both a future full-scale trial, and the wider health economy. METHODS: Application of the NPM to qualitative data collected in both focus groups and one-to-one interviews before and after an exploratory randomised controlled trial of a collaborative model of care for depression. RESULTS: Findings are presented as they relate to the four factors of the NPM (interactional workability, relational integration, skill-set workability, and contextual integration) and a number of necessary tasks are identified. Using the model, it was possible to observe that predictions about necessary work to implement collaborative care that could be made from analysis of the pre-trial data relating to the four different factors of the NPM were indeed borne out in the post-trial data. However, additional insights were gained from the post-trial interview participants who, unlike those interviewed before the trial, had direct experience of a novel intervention. The professional freedom enjoyed by more senior mental health workers may work both for and against normalisation of collaborative care as those who wish to adopt new ways of working have the freedom to change their practice but are not obliged to do so. CONCLUSIONS: The NPM provides a useful structure for both guiding and analysing the process by which an intervention is optimized for testing in a larger scale trial or for subsequent full-scale implementation.