How should we implement collaborative care for older people with depression? A qualitative study using normalisation process theory within the CASPER plus trial.

BACKGROUND: Depression in older people may have a prevalence as high as 20%, and is associated with physical co-morbidities, loss, and loneliness. It is associated with poorer health outcomes and reduced quality of life, and is under-diagnosed and under-treated. Older people may find it difficult to speak to their GPs about low mood, and GPs may avoid identifying depression due to limited consultation time and referral options for older patients. METHODS: A qualitative study nested within a randomised controlled trial for older people with moderate to severe depression: the CASPER plus Trial (Care for Screen Positive Elders). We interviewed patient participants, GPs, and case managers (CM) to explore patients' and professionals' views on collaborative care developed for older people, and how this model could be implemented at scale. Transcripts were analysed thematically using normalization process theory. RESULTS: Thirty-three interviews were conducted. Across the three data-sets, four main themes were identified based on the main principles of the Normalization Process Theory: understanding of collaborative care, interaction between patients and professionals, liaison between GPs and case managers, and the potential for implementation. CONCLUSIONS: A telephone-delivered intervention, incorporating behavioural activation, is acceptable to older people with depression, and is deliverable by case managers. The collaborative care framework makes sense to case managers and has the potential to optimize patient outcomes, but implementation requires integration in day to day general practice. Increasing GPs' understanding of collaborative care might improve liaison and collaboration with case managers, and facilitate the intervention through better support of patients. The CASPER plus model, delivering therapy to older adults with depression by telephone, offers the potential for implementation in a resource-poor health service.

A review of cluster randomized trials found statistical evidence of selection bias.

OBJECTIVES: To assess markers of selection bias risk in a sample of recently published cluster randomized controlled trials compared with individually randomized trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We used OVID Medline and the online archives of the Journal of the American Medical Association to search for cluster randomized trials published between January 2015 and June 2017 from four high-impact journals and compared them to a matched sample of individually randomized trials. RESULTS: We identified 23 cluster trials: 57% (n = 13) described a robust allocation method and 17% (n = 4) recruited all participants before randomization. Four (17%), eight (35%), and 11 (48%) were classified as at low, medium, and high bias risk, respectively. Meta-analysis showed significant age imbalance (-0.05, 95% CI = -0.057 to -0.043, I2 = 93.2%) in cluster trials, while the matched individually randomized trials showed no imbalance (0.005, 95% CI = -0.026 to 0.035, I2 = 0%). Cluster trials finding a statistically significant outcome in their primary measure showed a larger age imbalance (0.082, 95% CI = -0.091 to -0.073, I2 = 87%) than trials finding a nonstatistically significant outcome (0.022, 95% CI = 0.008 to 0.035, I2 = 83%). CONCLUSIONS: There is strong evidence in this sample of an effect of selection bias seen in an imbalance in baseline participant age, something not seen in a comparable sample of individually randomized trials.

CollAborative care for Screen-Positive EldeRs with major depression (CASPER plus): a multicentred randomised controlled trial of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Depression in older adults is common and is associated with poor quality of life, increased morbidity and early mortality, and increased health and social care use. Collaborative care, a low-intensity intervention for depression that is shown to be effective in working-age adults, has not yet been evaluated in older people with depression who are managed in UK primary care. The CollAborative care for Screen-Positive EldeRs (CASPER) plus trial fills the evidence gap identified by the most recent guidelines on depression management. OBJECTIVES: To establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for older adults with major depressive disorder in primary care. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentred, two-arm, parallel, individually randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative study. Participants were automatically randomised by computer, by the York Trials Unit Randomisation Service, on a 1 : 1 basis using simple unstratified randomisation after informed consent and baseline measures were collected. Blinding was not possible. SETTING: Sixty-nine general practices in the north of England. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 485 participants aged ≥ 65 years with major depressive disorder. INTERVENTIONS: A low-intensity intervention of collaborative care, including behavioural activation, delivered by a case manager for an average of six sessions over 7-8 weeks, alongside usual general practitioner (GP) care. The control arm received only usual GP care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items score at 4 months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures included depression severity and caseness at 12 and 18 months, the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, Short Form questionnaire-12 items, Patient Health Questionnaire-15 items, Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 items, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale-2 items, a medication questionnaire, objective data and adverse events. Participants were followed up at 12 and 18 months. RESULTS: In total, 485 participants were randomised (collaborative care, n = 249; usual care, n = 236), with 390 participants (80%: collaborative care, 75%; usual care, 86%) followed up at 4 months, 358 participants (74%: collaborative care, 70%; usual care, 78%) followed up at 12 months and 344 participants (71%: collaborative care, 67%; usual care, 75%) followed up at 18 months. A total of 415 participants were included in primary analysis (collaborative care, n = 198; usual care, n = 217), which revealed a statistically significant effect in favour of collaborative care at the primary end point at 4 months [8.98 vs. 10.90 score points, mean difference 1.92 score points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 2.99 score points; p < 0.001], equivalent to a standard effect size of 0.34. However, treatment differences were not maintained in the longer term (at 12 months: 0.19 score points, 95% CI -0.92 to 1.29 score points; p = 0.741; at 18 months: < 0.01 score points, 95% CI -1.12 to 1.12 score points; p = 0.997). The study recorded details of all serious adverse events (SAEs), which consisted of 'unscheduled hospitalisation', 'other medically important condition' and 'death'. No SAEs were related to the intervention. Collaborative care showed a small but non-significant increase in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over the 18-month period, with a higher cost. Overall, the mean cost per incremental QALY for collaborative care compared with usual care was £26,016; however, for participants attending six or more sessions, collaborative care appears to represent better value for money (£9876/QALY). LIMITATIONS: Study limitations are identified at different stages: design (blinding unfeasible, potential contamination), process (relatively low overall consent rate, differential attrition/retention rates) and analysis (no baseline health-care resource cost or secondary/social care data). CONCLUSION: Collaborative care was effective for older people with case-level depression across a range of outcomes in the short term though the reduction in depression severity was not maintained over the longer term of 12 or 18 months. Participants who received six or more sessions of collaborative care did benefit substantially more than those who received fewer treatment sessions but this difference was not statistically significant. FUTURE WORK RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendations for future research include investigating the longer-term effect of the intervention. Depression is a recurrent disorder and it would be useful to assess its impact on relapse and the prevention of future case-level depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45842879. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 67. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

CollAborative care and active surveillance for Screen-Positive EldeRs with subthreshold depression (CASPER): a multicentred randomised controlled trial of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to reduce the burden of illness and personal suffering associated with depression in older adults have focused on those with more severe depressive syndromes. Less attention has been paid to those with mild disorders/subthreshold depression, but these patients also suffer significant impairments in their quality of life and level of functioning. There is currently no clear evidence-based guidance regarding treatment for this patient group. OBJECTIVES: To establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a low-intensity intervention of collaborative care for primary care older adults who screened positive for subthreshold depression. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentred, two-arm, parallel, individually randomised controlled trial with a qualitative study embedded within the pilot. Randomisation occurred after informed consent and baseline measures were collected. SETTING: Thirty-two general practitioner (GP) practices in the north of England. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 705 participants aged ≥ 75 years during the pilot phase and ≥ 65 years during the main trial with subthreshold depression. INTERVENTIONS: Participants in the intervention group received a low-intensity intervention of collaborative care, which included behavioural activation delivered by a case manager for an average of six sessions over 7-8 weeks, alongside usual GP care. Control-arm participants received only usual GP care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was a self-reported measure of depression severity, the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items PHQ-9 score at 4 months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures included the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, Short Form questionnaire-12 items, Patient Health Questionnaire-15 items, Generalised Anxiety Disorder seven-item scale, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale two-item version, a medication questionnaire and objective data. Participants were followed up for 12 months. RESULTS: In total, 705 participants were randomised (collaborative care n = 344, usual care n = 361), with 586 participants (83%; collaborative care 76%, usual care 90%) followed up at 4 months and 519 participants (74%; collaborative care 68%, usual care 79%) followed up at 12 months. Attrition was markedly greater in the collaborative care arm. Model estimates at the primary end point of 4 months revealed a statistically significant effect in favour of collaborative care compared with usual care [mean difference 1.31 score points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.95 score points; p < 0.001]. The difference equates to a standard effect size of 0.30, for which the trial was powered. Treatment differences measured by the PHQ-9 were maintained at 12 months' follow-up (mean difference 1.33 score points, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.10 score points; p = 0.001). Base-case cost-effectiveness analysis found that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £9633 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). On average, participants allocated to collaborative care displayed significantly higher QALYs than those allocated to the control group (annual difference in adjusted QALYs of 0.044, 95% bias-corrected CI 0.015 to 0.072; p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care has been shown to be clinically effective and cost-effective for older adults with subthreshold depression and to reduce the proportion of people who go on to develop case-level depression at 12 months. This intervention could feasibly be delivered in the NHS at an acceptable cost-benefit ratio. Important future work would include investigating the longer-term effect of collaborative care on the CASPER population, which could be conducted by introducing an extension to follow-up, and investigating the impact of collaborative care on managing multimorbidities in people with subthreshold depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN02202951. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Effect of Collaborative Care vs Usual Care on Depressive Symptoms in Older Adults With Subthreshold Depression: The CASPER Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: There is little evidence to guide management of depressive symptoms in older people. Objective: To evaluate whether a collaborative care intervention can reduce depressive symptoms and prevent more severe depression in older people. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted from May 24, 2011, to November 14, 2014, in 32 primary care centers in the United Kingdom among 705 participants aged 65 years or older with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) subthreshold depression; participants were followed up for 12 months. Interventions: Collaborative care (n=344) was coordinated by a case manager who assessed functional impairments relating to mood symptoms. Participants were offered behavioral activation and completed an average of 6 weekly sessions. The control group received usual primary care (n=361). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was self-reported depression severity at 4-month follow-up on the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9; score range, 0-27). Included among 10 prespecified secondary outcomes were the PHQ-9 score at 12-month follow-up and the proportion meeting criteria for depressive disorder (PHQ-9 score ≥10) at 4- and 12-month follow-up. Results: The 705 participants were 58% female with a mean age of 77 (SD, 7.1) years. Four-month retention was 83%, with higher loss to follow-up in collaborative care (82/344 [24%]) vs usual care (37/361 [10%]). Collaborative care resulted in lower PHQ-9 scores vs usual care at 4-month follow-up (mean score with collaborative care, 5.36 vs with usual care, 6.67; mean difference, -1.31; 95% CI, -1.95 to -0.67; P < .001). Treatment differences remained at 12 months (mean PHQ-9 score with collaborative care, 5.93 vs with usual care, 7.25; mean difference, -1.33; 95% CI, -2.10 to -0.55). The proportions of participants meeting criteria for depression at 4-month follow-up were 17.2% (45/262) vs 23.5% (76/324), respectively (difference, -6.3% [95% CI, -12.8% to 0.2%]; relative risk, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.61-1.27]; P = .25) and at 12-month follow-up were 15.7% (37/235) vs 27.8% (79/284) (difference, -12.1% [95% CI, -19.1% to -5.1%]; relative risk, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.46-0.91]; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: Among older adults with subthreshold depression, collaborative care compared with usual care resulted in a statistically significant difference in depressive symptoms at 4-month follow-up, of uncertain clinical importance. Although differences persisted through 12 months, findings are limited by attrition, and further research is needed to assess longer-term efficacy. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN02202951.

An randomized controlled trial of Post-it® notes did not increase postal response rates in older depressed participants.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of a Post-it® note to increase response rates and shorten response times to a 4-month postal follow-up questionnaire sent to participants taking part in the Collaborative Care in Screen-Positive Elders (CASPER) trials. METHOD: Our trial was a two-arm randomized controlled trial comparing response rates to questionnaires with a printed Post-it® note (intervention) and without (control), nested in multi centred randomized controlled trials of older people with varying levels of depressive symptoms; the CASPER+ and CASPER Self Help for those At Risk of Depression (SHARD) trials. A total of 611 participants were eligible and randomized. The primary outcome was response rates, secondary outcomes were time to response and need for a reminder. RESULTS: Of 297 participants, 266 (89.6%) returned their 4-month questionnaire in the post-it note arm, compared with 282 of 314 participants (89.8%) in the control arm (OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.57, 1.65, P = 0.913). There were no statistically significant differences in time to respond or the need to be sent a reminder. Patients with a major depressive episode were more likely to return questionnaires with post-it notes (P of interaction = .019). CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in response rates, time to response, or the need for a reminder between the intervention and control at 4-month follow up for older people with depressive symptoms. However, there was a significant interaction between the Post-it® note group and level of depression.

Diagnostic accuracy of the Whooley questions for the identification of depression: a diagnostic meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Whooley questions in the identification of depression; and, to examine the effect of an additional 'help' question. DESIGN: Systematic review with random effects bivariate diagnostic meta-analysis. Search strategies included electronic databases, examination of reference lists, and forward citation searches. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies were included that provided sufficient data to calculate the diagnostic accuracy of the Whooley questions against a gold standard diagnosis of major depression. DATA EXTRACTION: Descriptive information, methodological quality criteria, and 2 × 2 contingency tables were extracted. RESULTS: Ten studies met inclusion criteria. Pooled sensitivity was 0.95 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.97) and pooled specificity was 0.65 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.74). Heterogeneity was low (I(2)=24.1%). Primary care subgroup analysis gave broadly similar results. Four of the ten studies provided information on the effect of an additional help question. The addition of this question did not consistently improve specificity while retaining high sensitivity as reported in the original validation study. CONCLUSIONS: The two-item Whooley questions have high sensitivity and modest specificity in the detection of depression. The current evidence for the use of an additional help question is not consistent and there is, as yet, insufficient data to recommend its use for screening or case finding. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42014009695.

Revealing hidden depression in older people: a qualitative study within a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of depressive symptoms in older people may be as high as 20 %. Depression in older people is associated with loss, loneliness and physical co-morbidities; it is known to be under-diagnosed and under-treated. Older people may find it difficult to speak to their GPs about low mood, and GPs may avoid identifying depression due to limited consultation time and referral options for older patients. METHODS: A nested qualitative study in a randomised controlled trial for older people with moderate to severe depression: the CASPER Plus Trial (Collaborative Care for Screen Positive Elders). We interviewed GPs, case managers (CM) and patient participants to explore perspectives and experiences of delivering and receiving a psychosocial intervention, developed specifically for older adults in primary care, within a collaborative care framework. Transcripts were analysed thematically using principles of constant comparison. RESULTS: Thirty three interviews were conducted and, across the three data-sets, four main themes were identified: revealing hidden depression, reducing the 'blind spots', opportunity to talk outside the primary care consultation and 'moving on' from depression. CONCLUSIONS: Depression in older people is commonly hidden, and may coexist with physical conditions that are prioritised by both patients and GPs. Being invited to participate in a trial about depression may allow older people to disclose their feelings, name the problem, and seek help. Offering older people an opportunity to talk outside the primary care consultation is valued by patients and GPs. A psychosocial intervention delivered by a case manager in the primary care setting may fill the gap in the care of older people with depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45842879 .

Diagnostic accuracy of the Whooley depression tool in older adults in UK primary care.

PURPOSE OF RESEARCH: To validate the Whooley questions as a screening tool for depression amongst a population of older adults in UK primary care. OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic performance of the Whooley questions as a screening tool for depression amongst older adults in UK primary care. PARTICIPANTS: A cross-sectional validation study was conducted with 766 patients aged ≥75 from UK primary care, recruited via 17 general practices based in the North of England during the pilot phase of a randomized controlled trial. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios comparing the index test (two Whooley questions) with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD) ascertained by the reference standard Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI). RESULTS: The two screening questions had a sensitivity of 94.3% (95% confidence interval, 80.8-99.3%) and specificity of 62.7% (95% confidence interval, 59.0-66.2%). The likelihood ratio for a positive test was 2.5 (95% confidence interval, 2.2-2.9) and the likelihood ratio for a negative test was 0.09 (95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.35). CONCLUSION: The two Whooley questions missed few cases of depression. However, they were responsible for a high rate of false positives. This creates additional burden on general practitioners, to conduct more detailed investigation on patients who screen positive, but many of whom turn out not to have MDD.