A computer-assisted telephone collaborative care intervention provided by lay providers for the treatment of comorbid depression and at-risk drinking: Analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Virtual collaborative care for people with comorbid depression and at-risk drinking lacks strong evidence. Our aim was to assess the impact of 12 months of telephone collaborative care (tCC) versus enhanced usual care (eUC) on depression and drinking. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of the Primary care Assessment and Research of a Telephone intervention for Neuropsychiatric conditions with Education and Resources study (PARTNERs), a blinded randomized controlled trial. We examined 144 participants with comorbid depression and at-risk drinking, of which 129 were from the original sample whose data have been published, and 15 were studied since the original report had been published. PARTNERs compared eUC consisting of usual care plus assessment of symptoms at baseline, and 4, 8, and 12 months later vs. tCC consisting of eUC plus telephone-based coaching and symptom monitoring provided by a lay mental health technician to patients supervised by a psychiatrist. The study assessed depression response and remission using logistic regression; we assessed trajectory of drinking using Generalized-estimating equations (GEE). Baseline factors associated with likelihood of not exceeding number of drinks at 12 months were identified using decision trees. RESULTS: tCC produced a faster decline in the number of drinks than eUC (Wald Χ2 = 9.47, p = 0.02). However, drinking and depression outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups at the end of treatment. Higher alcohol consumption at baseline (≥18 standard drinks per week in the tCC group and ≥11 standard drinks per week in the eUC group) was associated with a higher likelihood of having at-risk drinking after 12 months of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that, compared to eUC, tCC may accelerate drinking reductions in patients with comorbid depression and at-risk drinking. Both treatments were equally effective at the end of treatment for both depression and drinking outcomes.

A Collaborative-Care Telephone-Based Intervention for Depression, Anxiety, and at-Risk Drinking in Primary Care: The PARTNERs Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Collaborative care (CC) could improve outcomes in primary care patients with common mental conditions. We assessed the effectiveness of a transdiagnostic model of telephone-based CC (tCC) delivered by lay providers to primary care patients with depression, anxiety, or at-risk drinking. METHODS: PARTNERS was a pragmatic trial in 502 primary care adults presenting with depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, or at-risk drinking randomized to (1) usual care by primary care providers (PCPs) enhanced with the results of computer-assisted telephone-based assessments (at baseline and 4, 8, and 12 months later) (enhanced usual care [eUC]) or (2) tCC consisting of eUC plus frequent telephone coaching and psychoeducation provided by mental health technicians who also communicated to the PCP recommendations from a psychiatrist for evidence-based pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy, or, when indicated, referrals to mental health services. The primary analysis compared the change on the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) in participants presenting with depression (n = 366) randomized to tCC versus eUC. Secondary analyses compared changes on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 scale (GAD-7) in those presenting with anxiety (n = 298); or change in the number of weekly drinks in those presenting with at-risk drinking (n = 176). RESULTS: There were no treatment or time×treatment effects between tCC and eUC on PHQ-9 scores for patients with depression during the 12-month follow-up. However, there was a treatment effect (tCC > eUC) on GAD-7 scores in those with anxiety and a time×treatment interaction effect on the number of weekly drinks (tCC > eUC) in those with at-risk drinking. CONCLUSION: Implementing transdiagnostic tCC for common mental disorders using lay providers appears feasible in Canadian primary care. While tCC was not better than eUC for depression, there were some benefits for those with anxiety or at-risk drinking. Future studies will need to confirm whether tCC differentially benefits patients with depression, anxiety, or at-risk drinking.

The primary care assessment and research of a telephone intervention for neuropsychiatric conditions with education and resources study: Design, rationale, and sample of the PARTNERs randomized controlled trial.

While most patients with depression, anxiety, or at-risk drinking receive care exclusively in primary care settings, primary care providers experience challenges in diagnosing and treating these common problems. Over the past two decades, the collaborative care model has addressed these challenges. However, this model has been adopted very slowly due to the high costs of care managers; inability to sustain their role in small practices; and the perceived lack of relevance of interventions focused on a specific psychiatric diagnosis. Thus, we designed an innovative randomized clinical trial (RCT), the Primary Care Assessment and Research of a Telephone Intervention for Neuropsychiatric Conditions with Education and Resources study (PARTNERs). This RCT compared the outcomes of enhanced usual care and a novel model of collaborative care in primary care patients with depressive disorders, generalized anxiety, social phobia, panic disorder, at-risk drinking, or alcohol use disorders. These conditions were selected because they are present in almost a third of patients seen in primary care settings. Innovations included assigning the care manager role to trained lay providers supported by computer-based tools; providing all care management centrally by phone - i.e., the intervention was delivered without any face-to-face contact between the patient and the care team; and basing patient eligibility and treatment selection on a transdiagnostic approach using the same eligibility criteria and the same treatment algorithms regardless of the participants' specific psychiatric diagnosis. This paper describes the design of this RCT and discusses the rationale for its main design features.