Quality of life outcomes are equivalent after lobectomy in the elderly.

OBJECTIVE: Prospective analyses of quality of life in elderly patients after lobectomy are limited, yet surgeons often recommend suboptimal therapy to these patients on the basis of the belief that lobectomy is poorly tolerated. Surgical decision making in elderly patients with lung cancer is better informed when the benefits to survival and quality of life after lobectomy are understood. METHODS: By using a validated quality of life instrument, 422 patients were prospectively assessed preoperatively and 3, 6, and 12 months after lobectomy. Outcomes were analyzed with respect to age (group 1: < 70 years and group 2: > or = 70 years). The outcome domains of physical functioning, role functioning, emotional functioning, cognitive functioning, social functioning, global health, and pain in the chest were analyzed using a mixed model. The trend in quality of life was determined according to age. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for analysis of overall survival. RESULTS: The mean age was 60.1 years in group 1 (N = 256) and 74.7 years in group 2 (N = 166). Baseline demographics and quality of life were similar except that group 2 had better emotional functioning scores and worse pain in the chest scores. Postoperatively, both groups demonstrated significant decreases in quality of life at 3 months. However, at 6 and 12 months, all domains had returned to baseline except physical functioning, which remained below baseline in group 2. Emotional functioning improved postoperatively for both groups. Overall survival at 5 years was not different between groups. CONCLUSION: By using a validated quality of life assessment tool with measurements at baseline and serially after resection in a large patient population, this analysis quantifies the degree of impairment of quality of life after lobectomy and documents time to full recovery for both age groups.

The headache management trial: a randomized study of coordinated care.

CONTEXT: Headache is a common, disabling disorder that is frequently not well managed in general clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To determine if patients cared for in a coordinated headache management program would achieve reduced headache disability compared with patients in usual care. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial of headache management vs usual care. SETTING: Three distinctly different practice sites: an academic internal medicine practice located in a major east coast city, a staff-model managed care organization located in a major west coast city, and a community practice in a medium-sized city in the southeast. Patients.- Individuals 21 years of age or older with chronic tension-type, migraine, or mixed etiology headache and a Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score greater than 5, not receiving treatment from a neurologist or headache clinic currently or within the previous 6 months and with an intention to continue general medical care at their current location and to continue their present health insurance coverage for the next 12 months. INTERVENTIONS: Active intervention is a headache management program consisting of: (1) a class specifically designed to inform patients about headache types, triggers, and treatment options; (2) diagnosis and treatment by a professional especially trained in headache care (based on US Headache Consortium guidelines); and (3) proactive follow-up by a case manager. Participation lasted 6 months. Control patients received usual care from their primary care providers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy measure reported in this article is a comparison of MIDAS scores of headache disability between the intervention group and the control group at 6 months. Secondary measures were response at 12 months, general health and quality of life, and satisfaction with headache care. RESULTS: The intervention improved (ie, decreased) MIDAS scores by 7.0 points (95% confidence interval 2.9 to 11.1) more than the control (P = .008) at 6 months. The difference was not affected by site (P = .59 for clinic by intervention interaction), and a trend toward persistent benefit at 12 months (mean difference in improvement 6.8 points, 95% confidence interval -.3 to 13.9, P = .06) was observed. Quality of life and satisfaction with headache treatment were similarly improved. CONCLUSIONS: Coordinated headache management significantly improved outcomes for patients who, despite contact with the healthcare system for headache, had substantial unmet needs. The intervention in this trial can be implemented practically in a wide range of settings with the expectation that meaningful improvements will accrue.

Long term outcomes from the IMPACT randomised trial for depressed elderly patients in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the long term effectiveness of collaborative care management for depression in late life. DESIGN: Two arm, randomised, clinical trial; intervention one year and follow-up two years. SETTING: 18 primary care clinics in eight US healthcare organisations. Patients 1801 primary care patients aged 60 and older with major depression, dysthymia, or both. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to a 12 month collaborative care intervention (IMPACT) or usual care for depression. Teams including a depression care manager, primary care doctor, and psychiatrist offered education, behavioural activation, antidepressants, a brief, behaviour based psychotherapy (problem solving treatment), and relapse prevention geared to each patient's needs and preferences. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Interviewers, blinded to treatment assignment, conducted interviews in person at baseline and by telephone at each subsequent follow up. They measured depression (SCL-20), overall functional impairment and quality of life (SF-12), physical functioning (PCS-12), depression treatment, and satisfaction with care. RESULTS: IMPACT patients fared significantly (P < 0.05) better than controls regarding continuation of antidepressant treatment, depressive symptoms, remission of depression, physical functioning, quality of life, self efficacy, and satisfaction with care at 18 and 24 months. One year after IMPACT resources were withdrawn, a significant difference in SCL-20 scores (0.23, P < 0.0001) favouring IMPACT patients remained. CONCLUSIONS: Tailored collaborative care actively engages older adults in treatment for depression and delivers substantial and persistent long term benefits. Benefits include less depression, better physical functioning, and an enhanced quality of life. The IMPACT model may show the way to less depression and healthier lives for older adults.

Cost-effectiveness of improving primary care treatment of late-life depression.

CONTEXT: Depression is a leading cause of functional impairment in elderly individuals and is associated with high medical costs, but there are large gaps in quality of treatment in primary care. OBJECTIVE: To determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of the Improving Mood Promoting Access to Collaborative Treatment (IMPACT) collaborative care management program for late-life depression. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial with recruitment from July 1999 to August 2001. SETTING: Eighteen primary care clinics from 8 health care organizations in 5 states. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1801 patients 60 years or older with major depression (17%), dysthymic disorder (30%), or both (53%). INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to the IMPACT intervention (n = 906) or to usual primary care (n = 895). Intervention patients were provided access to a depression care manager supervised by a psychiatrist and primary care physician. Depression care managers offered education, support of antidepressant medications prescribed in primary care, and problem-solving treatment in primary care (a brief psychotherapy). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total outpatient costs, depression-free days, and quality-adjusted life-years. RESULTS: Relative to usual care, intervention patients experienced 107 (95% confidence interval [CI], 86 to 128) more depression-free days over 24 months. Total outpatient costs were USD $295 (95% CI, -$525 to $1115) higher during this period. The incremental outpatient cost per depression-free day was USD $2.76 (95% CI, -$4.95 to $10.47) and incremental outpatient costs per quality-adjusted life-year ranged from USD $2519 (95% CI, -$4517 to $9554) to USD $5037 (95% CI, -$9034 to $19 108). Results of a bootstrap analysis suggested a 25% probability that the IMPACT intervention was "dominant" (ie, lower costs and greater effectiveness). CONCLUSIONS: The IMPACT intervention is a high-value investment for older adults; it is associated with high clinical benefits at a low increment in health care costs.

Physicians' satisfaction with a collaborative disease management program for late-life depression in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: This study describes physicians' satisfaction with care for patients with depression before and after the implementation of a primary care-based collaborative care program. METHOD: Project Improving Mood, Promoting Access to Collaborative Treatment for late-life depression (IMPACT) is a multisite, randomized controlled trial comparing a primary care-based collaborative disease management program for late-life depression with care as usual. A total of 450 primary care physicians at 18 participating clinics participated in a satisfaction survey before and 12 months after IMPACT initiation. The preintervention survey focused on physicians' satisfaction with current mental health resources and ability to provide depression care. The postintervention survey repeated these and added questions about physician's experience with the IMPACT collaborative care model. RESULTS: Before intervention, about half (54%) of the participating physicians were satisfied with resources to treat patients with depression. After intervention, more than 90% reported the intervention as helpful in treating patients with depression and 82% felt that the intervention improved patients' clinical outcomes. Participating physicians identified proactive patient follow-up and patient education as the most helpful components of the IMPACT model. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians perceived a substantial need for improving depression treatment in primary care. They were very satisfied with the IMPACT collaborative care model for treating depressed older adults and felt that similar care management models would also be helpful for treating other chronic medical illnesses.

Burden of illness and satisfaction with care among patients with headache seen in a primary care setting.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the current level of headache burden and the headache management needs at three diverse clinical sites. BACKGROUND: Headache is a common disabling disorder that is costly for the patient and a management challenge for physicians. The determination of whether and how to intervene to improve headache management depends on both the burden of disease and the characteristics of patients that would likely be targeted. METHODS: Patients from three healthcare organizations were identified by administrative records as having either migraine or tension-type headache and then mailed a survey that addressed demographics, headache type, headache-related disability, depression and anxiety, satisfaction with care, general health, worry about headache, problems with headache management, and healthcare utilization. Comparisons were made across sites and between patients with more and less severe headache-related impairments. RESULTS: Of the 789 patients contacted, 385 (50%) returned a survey. While the socio-demographic characteristics of the patients were diverse, headache-related characteristics were similar. These patients have significant problems with headache management, disability, pain, worry, and dissatisfaction with care. Patients who described higher headache-related impairment experienced significantly greater problems in these areas, perceived themselves to be in worse general health, and had significantly greater use of medical services than those with lower headache severity. CONCLUSIONS: Despite various elements of heterogeneity, we observed across the sites a consistent need for improvement in headache management. Future efforts should be directed at developing and evaluating methods for effectively improving headache management.

Hormone therapy does not affect depression severity in older women.

OBJECTIVE: Although estrogens are thought to have a beneficial effect on menopausal symptoms, the role of estrogen in the etiology and treatment of depression in older women remains unclear. The authors examined the relationship between hormone therapy (HT) use and depressive symptom severity. METHODS: Authors report the findings from a cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from the Improving Mood: Promoting Access to Collaborative Treatment (IMPACT) Study, using data from 1,160 women age 60 years and older. RESULTS: Women who were taking HT were likely to be younger, White, married, and to have had at least some college education. They were also more likely to report good or better health and to have taken antidepressant medications in the past 3 months. Although HT use was associated with more severe depressive symptoms in the unadjusted analysis, it was not associated with depression severity in adjusted analyses. Although there was a trend for a differential effect of college education with HT use on depression scores, no significant interaction was found between HT and race. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence to suggest that women HT users differ from non-HT users in depressive symptom severity.

Treatment of depression improves physical functioning in older adults.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of collaborative care management for depression on physical functioning in older adults. DESIGN: Multisite randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Eighteen primary care clinics from eight healthcare organizations. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand eight hundred one patients aged 60 and older with major depressive disorder. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to the Improving Mood: Promoting Access to Collaborative Treatment (IMPACT) intervention (n=906) or to a control group receiving usual care (n=895). Control patients had access to all health services available as part of usual care. Intervention patients had access for 12 months to a depression clinical specialist who coordinated depression care with their primary care physician. MEASUREMENTS: The 12-item short form Physical Component Summary (PCS) score (range 0-100) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) (range 0-7). RESULTS: The mean patient age was 71.2, 65% were women, and 77% were white. At baseline, the mean PCS was 40.2, and the mean number of IADL dependencies was 0.7; 45% of participants rated their health as fair or poor. Intervention patients experienced significantly better physical functioning at 1 year than usual-care patients as measured using between-group differences on the PCS of 1.71 (95% confidence interval (CI)=0.96-2.46) and IADLs of -0.15 (95% CI=-0.29 to -0.01). Intervention patients were also less likely to rate their health as fair or poor (37.3% vs 52.4%, P<.001). Combining both study groups, patients whose depression improved were more likely to experience improvement in physical functioning. CONCLUSION: The IMPACT collaborative care model for late-life depression improves physical function more than usual care.

Improving depression care for older, minority patients in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: Few older minorities receive adequate treatment of depression in primary care. This study examines whether a collaborative care model for depression in primary care is as effective in older minorities as it is in nonminority elderly patients in improving depression treatment and outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: A multisite randomized clinical trial of 1801 older adults comparing collaborative care for depression with treatment as usual in primary care. Twelve percent of the sample were black (n = 222), 8% were Latino (n = 138), and 3% (n = 53) were from other minority groups. We compared the 3 largest ethnic groups (non-Latino white, black, and Latino) on depression severity, quality of life, and mental health service use at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months after randomization to collaborative care or usual care. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Compared with care as usual, collaborative care significantly improved rates and outcomes of depression care in older adults from ethnic minority groups and in older whites. At 12 months, intervention patients from ethnic minorities (blacks and Latinos) had significantly greater rates of depression care for both antidepressant medication and psychotherapy, lower depression severity, and less health-related functional impairment than usual care participants (64%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 55-72 versus 45%, CI 36-55, P = 0.003 for antidepressant medication; 37%, CI 28-47 versus 13%, CI 6-19, P = 0.002 for psychotherapy; mean = 0.9, CI 0.8-1.1 versus mean = 1.4, CI 1.3-1.5, P < 0.001 for depression severity, range 0-4; mean = 3.7, CI 3.2-4.1, versus mean = 4.7, CI 4.3-5.1, P < 0.0001 for functional impairment, range 0-10). CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative Care is significantly more effective than usual care for depressed older adults, regardless of their ethnicity. Intervention effects in ethnic minority participants were similar to those observed in whites.

Improving depression outcomes in older adults with comorbid medical illness.

BACKGROUND: Depression is common in older adults and often coexists with multiple chronic diseases, which may complicate its diagnosis and treatment. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether or not the presence of multiple comorbid medical illnesses affects patient response to a multidisciplinary depression treatment program. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Preplanned analyses of Improving Mood-Promoting Access to Collaborative Treatment (IMPACT), a randomized controlled trial of 1801 depressed older adults (> or =60 years), which was performed at 18 primary care clinics from eight health care organizations in five states across the United States from July 1999 to August 2001. INTERVENTION: Intervention patients had access for up to 12 months to a depression care manager, supervised by a psychiatrist and a primary care expert, who offered education, care management and support of antidepressant management by the patient's primary care physician, or provided brief psychotherapy (Problem-Solving Treatment in Primary Care). MEASUREMENTS: Depression, quality of life (QOL; scale of 0-10) and mental health component score (MCS) of the Short-Form 12 assessed at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: Patients suffered from an average of 3.8 chronic medical conditions. Although patients with more chronic medical conditions had higher depression severity at baseline, the number of chronic diseases did not affect the likelihood of response to the IMPACT intervention when compared to care as usual. Intervention patients experienced significantly lower depression during all follow-up time points as compared with patients in usual care independent of other comorbid illnesses (P<.001). Intervention patients were also more likely to experience substantial response (at least a 50% reduction in depressive symptoms) regardless of the number of comorbidities, to experience improved MCS-12 scores at 3 and 12 months, and to experience improved QOL. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of multiple comorbid medical illnesses did not affect patient response to a multidisciplinary depression treatment program. The IMPACT collaborative care model was equally effective for depressed older adults with or without comorbid medical illnesses.

Depression and comorbid illness in elderly primary care patients: impact on multiple domains of health status and well-being.

PURPOSE: Our objective was to examine the relative association of depression severity and chronicity, other comorbid psychiatric conditions, and coexisting medical illnesses with multiple domains of health status among primary care patients with clinical depression. METHODS: We collected cross-sectional data as part of a treatment effectiveness trial that was conducted in 8 diverse health care organizations. Patients aged 60 years and older (N = 1,801) who met diagnostic criteria for major depression or dysthymia participated in a baseline survey. A survey instrument included questions on sociodemographic characteristics, depression severity and chronicity, neuroticism, and the presence of 11 common chronic medical illnesses, as well as questions screening for panic disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder. Measures of 4 general health indicators (physical and mental component scales of the SF-12, Sheehan Disability Index, and global quality of life) were included. We conducted separate mixed-effect regression linear models predicting each of the 4 general health indicators. RESULTS: Depression severity was significantly associated with all 4 indicators of general health after controlling for sociodemographic differences, other psychological dysfunction, and the presence of 11 chronic medical conditions. Although study participants had an average of 3.8 chronic medical illnesses, depression severity made larger independent contributions to 3 of the 4 general health indicators (mental functional status, disability, and quality of life) than the medical comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Recognition and treatment of depression has the potential to improve functioning and quality of life in spite of the presence of other medical comorbidities.

The effectiveness of depression care management on diabetes-related outcomes in older patients.

BACKGROUND: Depression frequently occurs in combination with diabetes mellitus, adversely affecting the course of illness. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether enhancing care for depression improves affective and diabetic outcomes in older adults with diabetes and depression. DESIGN: Preplanned subgroup analysis of the Improving Mood-Promoting Access to Collaborative Treatment (IMPACT) randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: 18 primary care clinics from 8 health care organizations in 5 states. PATIENTS: 1801 patients 60 years of age or older with depression; 417 had coexisting diabetes mellitus. INTERVENTION: A care manager offered education, problem-solving treatment, or support for antidepressant management by the patient's primary care physician; diabetes care was not specifically enhanced. MEASUREMENTS: Assessments at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months for depression, functional impairment, and diabetes self-care behaviors. Hemoglobin A(1c) levels were obtained for 293 patients at baseline and at 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: At 12 months, diabetic patients who were assigned to intervention had less severe depression (range, 0 to 4 on a checklist of 20 depression items; between-group difference, -0.43 [95% CI, -0.57 to -0.29]; P < 0.001) and greater improvement in overall functioning (range, 0 [none] to 10 [unable to perform activities]; between-group difference, -0.89 [CI, -1.46 to -0.32]) than did participants who received usual care. In the intervention group, weekly exercise days increased (between-group difference, 0.50 day [CI, 0.12 to 0.89 day]; P = 0.001); other self-care behaviors were not affected. At baseline, mean (+/-SD) hemoglobin A1c levels were 7.28% +/- 1.43%; follow-up values were unaffected by the intervention (P > 0.2). LIMITATIONS: Because patients had good glycemic control at baseline, power to detect small but clinically important improvements in glycemic control was limited. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care improves affective and functional status in older patients with depression and diabetes; however, among patients with good glycemic control, such care minimally affects diabetes-specific outcomes.

Effect of improving depression care on pain and functional outcomes among older adults with arthritis: a randomized controlled trial.

CONTEXT: Depression and arthritis are disabling and common health problems in late life. Depression is also a risk factor for poor health outcomes among arthritis patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether enhancing care for depression improves pain and functional outcomes in older adults with depression and arthritis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Preplanned subgroup analyses of Improving Mood-Promoting Access to Collaborative Treatment (IMPACT), a randomized controlled trial of 1801 depressed older adults (> or =60 years), which was performed at 18 primary care clinics from 8 health care organizations in 5 states across the United States from July 1999 to August 2001. A total of 1001 (56%) reported coexisting arthritis at baseline. INTERVENTION: Antidepressant medications and/or 6 to 8 sessions of psychotherapy (Problem-Solving Treatment in Primary Care). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Depression, pain intensity (scale of 0 to 10), interference with daily activities due to arthritis (scale of 0 to 10), general health status, and overall quality-of-life outcomes assessed at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: In addition to reduction in depressive symptoms, the intervention group compared with the usual care group at 12 months had lower mean (SE) scores for pain intensity (5.62 [0.16] vs 6.15 [0.16]; between-group difference, -0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.92 to -0.14; P =.009), interference with daily activities due to arthritis (4.40 [0.18] vs 4.99 [0.17]; between-group difference, -0.59; 95% CI, -1.00 to -0.19; P =.004), and interference with daily activities due to pain (2.92 [0.07] vs 3.17 [0.07]; between-group difference, -0.26; 95% CI, -0.41 to -0.10; P =.002). Overall health and quality of life were also enhanced among intervention patients relative to control patients at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: In a large and diverse population of older adults with arthritis (mostly osteoarthritis) and comorbid depression, benefits of improved depression care extended beyond reduced depressive symptoms and included decreased pain as well as improved functional status and quality of life.

Headache management program improves outcome for chronic headache.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of developing a headache management program and to assess the outcomes of patients referred to the program for treatment of chronic headache. BACKGROUND: Effective headache treatment requires that the patient receives the correct headache diagnosis; that appropriate acute and, if indicated, preventive medications be prescribed; and that the patient receives adequate education, including headache self-management skills. DESIGN/METHODS: A headache management program was established at a northern California staff-model health maintenance organization. Fifty-four patients were enrolled in the program and followed for 6 months. Patients participated in a structured program of group and individual sessions with the program manager. Data collection at baseline and 6 months included the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), the Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), a patient satisfaction survey, and 2 additional short surveys--one that assessed patient worries about their headaches and another that queried patients on their problems with headache management. RESULTS: All enrolled patients participated in the initial group visit; 74% had at least one additional visit. All but one patient suffered from more than one headache type. Sixty-one percent of patients suffered from migraine headache and 98% from tension-type headache. At baseline, patients were severely disabled, with a mean MIDAS score of 41. At 6 months, MIDAS scores decreased an average of 21.2 points (P <.005). Patients reported 14.5 fewer days with headache over the preceding 3 months (P <.0001) and experienced clinically significant improvements in 6 of the SF-36 subscales. Patients were significantly more satisfied with their headache care (P <.0001), reported less problems with their headache management (P <.0001), and were less worried about their headaches (P <.01). During the intervention, emergency department visits for headache decreased (P <.02). CONCLUSIONS: A headache management program was successfully established. Patients referred to the program experienced significant improvement in headache-related disability and functional health status and reported greater satisfaction with care. Even so, these results were obtained at one site and in a small sample that was not randomized. We currently are conducting a randomized controlled trial to better evaluate the clinical and financial impact of a headache management program for patients with chronic headache.

Implementing a disease management intervention for depression in primary care: a random work sampling study.

We describe the daily work activities of 13 Depression Clinical Specialists (DCSs) at 7 national sites who served as care managers in an effective multisite randomized trial of a disease management model for depression in primary care. DCSs carried portable random-reminder beepers for a total of 147 consecutive workdays and recorded 4,030 work activities. Patient care activity comprised the largest percentage of the workday, 49.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 42.0 to 56.7%), followed by research-related activity, 18.3 % (95% CI, 14.7 to 21.9%), administrative work, 17.9% (95% CI, 12.2 to 23.7%), personal time, 9.4% (95% CI, 5.4 to 13.4%), and time in transit, 5.1% (95% CI, 2.8 to 7.4%). The DCSs delivered 19.2% (95% CI, 14.4 to 24.1%) of direct patient care by telephone. The DCSs spent a significant portion of the day alone 48.7% (95% CI, 43.3 to 54.1%), followed by time spent with patients, 37.5% (95% CI, 31.6 to 43.3%). Less than 10% (7.8%) (95% CI, 5.1 to 10.6%) of their time was spent with local study staff. Less than 4% of their time was spent with other health care providers. Our results demonstrate that the DCSs' time was primarily devoted to clinical care, a significant portion of which was delivered by telephone. They functioned independently, making efficient use of the limited amount of time that they interacted with other health care providers. This information will be helpful to those who may wish to implement this disease management strategy.

Depression treatment in a sample of 1,801 depressed older adults in primary care.

OBJECTIVES: To examine rates and predictors of lifetime and recent depression treatment in a sample of 1,801 depressed older primary care patients DESIGN: Cross sectional survey data collected from 1999 to 2001 as part of a treatment effectiveness trial. SETTING: Eighteen primary care clinics belonging to eight organizations in five states. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand eight hundred one clinic users aged 60 and older who met diagnostic criteria for major depression or dysthymia. MEASUREMENTS: Lifetime depression treatment was defined as ever having received a prescription medication, counseling, or psychotherapy for depression. Potentially effective recent depression treatment was defined as 2 or more months of antidepressant medications or four or more sessions of counseling or psychotherapy for depression in the past 3 months. RESULTS: The mean age +/- standard deviation was 71.2 +/- 7.5; 65% of subjects were women. Twenty-three percent of the sample came from ethnic minority groups (12% were African American, 8% were Latino, and 3% belonged to other ethnic minorities). The median household income was $23,000. Most study participants (83%) reported depressive symptoms for 2 or more years, and most (71%) reported two or more prior depressive episodes. About 65% reported any lifetime depression treatment, and 46% reported some depression treatment in the past 3 months, although only 29% reported potentially effective recent depression treatment. Most of the treatment provided consisted of antidepressant medications, with newer antidepressants such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors constituting the majority (78%) of antidepressants used. Most participants indicated a preference for counseling or psychotherapy over antidepressant medications, but only 8% had received such treatment in the past 3 months, and only 1% reported four or more sessions of counseling. Men, African Americans, Latinos, those without two or more prior episodes of depression, and those who preferred counseling to antidepressant medications reported significantly lower rates of depression care. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that there is considerable opportunity to improve care for older adults with depression. Particular efforts should be focused on improving access to depression care for older men, African Americans, Latinos, and patients who prefer treatments other than antidepressants.

Impacting late life depression: integrating a depression intervention into primary care.

groups and semi-structured individual interviews with all Depression Clinical Specialists (DCSs) working with Project IMPACT (Improving Mood: Promoting Access to Collaborative Treatment), a study testing a collaborative care intervention for late life depression, to examine integration of the intervention model into primary care. DCSs described key intervention components, including supervision from a psychiatrist and a liaison primary care provider, weekly team meetings, computerized patient tracking, and outcomes assessment tools as effective in supporting patient care. DCSs discussed details of protocols, training, environmental set-up, and interpersonal factors that seemed to facilitate integration. DCSs also identified research-related factors that may need to be preserved in the real world. Basic elements of the IMPACT model seem to support integration of late life depression care into primary care. Research-related components may need modification for dissemination.

Assessment of the scope and quality of clinical practice guidelines in lung cancer.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To provide an evidence-based background for developing the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) lung cancer guidelines, a systematic review of the literature was performed to identify published lung cancer guidelines and evaluate their quality. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A systematic search was performed for relevant literature from MEDLINE, Cancerlit, CINAHL, HealthStar, the Cochrane Library, and the National Guidelines Clearinghouse published from January 1989 to July 2001. MEASUREMENT AND RESULTS: From 369 citations, 51 relevant guidelines were identified. Each guideline was evaluated by at least four reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument and was coded for clinical topics covered. The recommendations included in each guideline also were abstracted. Of the 51 guidelines evaluated, 27 (53%) were evidence-based. Clinical topics identified by the ACCP for their guideline effort each were represented by at least one existing guideline. Of the 880 clinical recommendations abstracted from the guidelines, only 253 (29%) were evidence-based. The AGREE instrument rates guidelines along six domains. As a group, the guidelines performed well in the scope and purpose domain, with only six guidelines (12%) scoring < 50%. For the remaining domains, however, the guidelines did not perform as well, as follows: for stakeholder involvement, 41 guidelines (80%) scored < 50%; for rigor of development, 29 guidelines (57%) scored < 50%; for clarity and presentation, 17 guidelines (33%) scored < 50%; for applicability, 46 guidelines (90%) scored < 50%; and for editorial independence, 47 guidelines (92%) scored < 50%. After considering the domain scores, the reviewers recommended only 19 of the guidelines (37%). CONCLUSIONS: All major clinical lung cancer topics are covered by at least one guideline, but no single guideline addresses all areas. Furthermore, although existing guidelines may accurately reflect clinical practice, most performed poorly when evaluated for quality. Future guideline efforts that address each item of the AGREE instrument would add substantially to the literature.

Noninvasive staging of non-small cell lung cancer: a review of the current evidence.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To determine the test performance characteristics of CT scanning, positron emission tomography (PET) scanning, MRI, and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for staging the mediastinum, and to evaluate the accuracy of the clinical evaluation (ie, symptoms, physical findings, or routine blood test results) for predicting metastatic disease in patients in whom non-small cell lung cancer or small cell lung cancer is diagnosed. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Systematic searches of MEDLINE, HealthStar, and Cochrane Library databases to July 2001, and of print bibliographies. Studies evaluating the staging results of CT scanning, PET scanning, MRI, or EUS, with either tissue histologic confirmation or long-term clinical follow-up, were included. The performance of the clinical evaluation was compared against the results of brain and abdominal CT scans and radionuclide bone scans. MEASUREMENT AND RESULTS: Pooled sensitivities and specificities for staging the mediastinum were as follows: for CT scanning: sensitivity, 0.57 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49 to 0.66); specificity, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.77 to 0.86); for PET scanning: sensitivity, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.78 to 0.89); specificity, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.83 to 0.93); and for EUS: sensitivity, 0.78 (95% CI, 0.61 to 0.89); specificity, 0.71 (95% CI, 0.56 to 0.82). For the evaluation of brain metastases, the summary estimate of the negative predictive value (NPV) of the clinical neurologic evaluation was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.91 to 0.96). For detecting adrenal and/or liver metastases, the summary NPV of the clinical evaluation was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.93 to 0.96), and for detecting bone metastases, it was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.86 to 0.93). CONCLUSIONS: PET scanning is more accurate than CT scanning or EUS for detecting mediastinal metastases. The NPVs of the clinical evaluations for brain, abdominal, and bone metastases are > or = 90%, suggesting that routinely imaging asymptomatic lung cancer patients may not be necessary. However, more definitive prospective studies that better define the patient population and improved reference standards are necessary to more accurately assess the true NPV of the clinical evaluation.

Invasive staging of non-small cell lung cancer: a review of the current evidence.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To determine the test performance characteristics of transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA), transthoracic needle aspiration (TTNA), endoscopic ultrasound-guided needle aspiration (EUS-NA), and mediastinoscopy in staging non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Systematic search of MEDLINE, HealthStar, and Cochrane Library databases to July 2001 and print bibliographies. Included were studies comparing staging results of TBNA, TTNA, EUS-NA, or mediastinoscopy against either tissue histologic confirmation or long-term clinical follow-up (> or = 1 year). Patients included were those with NSCLC or small cell lung cancer. MEASUREMENT AND RESULTS: For patients with lung cancer, the pooled sensitivity for TBNA was 0.76, the pooled specificity was 0.96, and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 0.71. For TTNA, the pooled sensitivity was 0.91, with an NPV of 0.78. EUS-NA had a pooled sensitivity of 0.88, a pooled specificity of 0.91, and an NPV of 0.77. For standard cervical mediastinoscopy, the pooled sensitivity was 0.81, with an NPV of 0.91. The addition of either extended cervical mediastinoscopy or anterior mediastinotomy to standard cervical mediastinoscopy appeared to improve the sensitivity of any of the procedures alone. CONCLUSIONS: Invasive clinical staging of NSCLC can be performed effectively by TBNA, TTNA, EUS-NA, or mediastinoscopy. Selection of the appropriate study is dependent on the degree of suspicion for metastatic disease, the patient's comorbid illnesses, and the availability and performance characteristics of procedural options.