Collaborative care to improve the management of depressive disorders: a community guide systematic review and meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: To improve the quality of depression management, collaborative care models have been developed from the Chronic Care Model over the past 20 years. Collaborative care is a multicomponent, healthcare system-level intervention that uses case managers to link primary care providers, patients, and mental health specialists. In addition to case management support, primary care providers receive consultation and decision support from mental health specialists (i.e., psychiatrists and psychologists). This collaboration is designed to (1) improve routine screening and diagnosis of depressive disorders; (2) increase provider use of evidence-based protocols for the proactive management of diagnosed depressive disorders; and (3) improve clinical and community support for active client/patient engagement in treatment goal-setting and self-management. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A team of subject matter experts in mental health, representing various agencies and institutions, conceptualized and conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on collaborative care for improving the management of depressive disorders. This team worked under the guidance of the Community Preventive Services Task Force, a nonfederal, independent, volunteer body of public health and prevention experts. Community Guide systematic review methods were used to identify, evaluate, and analyze available evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: An earlier systematic review with 37 RCTs of collaborative care studies published through 2004 found evidence of effectiveness of these models in improving depression outcomes. An additional 32 studies of collaborative care models conducted between 2004 and 2009 were found for this current review and analyzed. The results from the meta-analyses suggest robust evidence of effectiveness of collaborative care in improving depression symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD]=0.34); adherence to treatment (OR=2.22); response to treatment (OR=1.78); remission of symptoms (OR=1.74); recovery from symptoms (OR=1.75); quality of life/functional status (SMD=0.12); and satisfaction with care (SMD=0.39) for patients diagnosed with depression (all effect estimates were significant). CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care models are effective in achieving clinically meaningful improvements in depression outcomes and public health benefits in a wide range of populations, settings, and organizations. Collaborative care interventions provide a supportive network of professionals and peers for patients with depression, especially at the primary care level.

Economics of collaborative care for management of depressive disorders: a community guide systematic review.

CONTEXT: Major depressive disorders are frequently underdiagnosed and undertreated. Collaborative Care models developed from the Chronic Care Model during the past 20 years have improved the quality of depression management in the community, raising intervention cost incrementally above usual care. This paper assesses the economic efficiency of collaborative care for management of depressive disorders by comparing its economic costs and economic benefits to usual care, as informed by a systematic review of the literature. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The economic review of collaborative care for management of depressive disorders was conducted in tandem with a review of effectiveness, under the guidance of the Community Preventive Services Task Force, a nonfederal, independent group of public health leaders and experts. Economic review methods developed by the Guide to Community Preventive Services were used by two economists to screen, abstract, adjust, and summarize the economic evidence of collaborative care from societal and other perspectives. An earlier economic review that included eight RCTs was included as part of the evidence. The present economic review expanded the evidence with results from studies published from 1980 to 2009 and included both RCTs and other study designs. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: In addition to the eight RCTs included in the earlier review, 22 more studies of collaborative care that provided estimates for economic outcomes were identified, 20 of which were evaluations of actual interventions and two of which were based on models. Of seven studies that measured only economic benefits of collaborative care in terms of averted healthcare or productivity loss, four found positive economic benefits due to intervention and three found minimal or no incremental benefit. Of five studies that measured both benefits and costs, three found lower collaborative care cost because of reduced healthcare utilization or enhanced productivity, and one found the same for a subpopulation of the intervention group. One study found that willingness to pay for collaborative care exceeded program costs. Among six cost-utility studies, five found collaborative care was cost effective. In two modeled studies, one showed cost effectiveness based on comparison of $/disability-adjusted life-year to annual per capita income; the other demonstrated cost effectiveness based on the standard threshold of $50,000/quality-adjusted life year, unadjusted for inflation. Finally, six of eight studies in the earlier review reported that interventions were cost effective on the basis of the standard threshold. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence indicates that collaborative care for management of depressive disorders provides good economic value.