Promotora assisted depression care among predominately Hispanic patients with concurrent chronic illness: Public care system clinical trial design

Collaborative care approaches for people with severe mental illness

BACKGROUND

Collaborative care for severe mental illness (SMI) is a community-based intervention that promotes interdisciplinary working across primary and secondary care. Collaborative care interventions aim to improve the physical and/or mental health care of individuals with SMI. This is an update of a 2013 Cochrane review, based on new searches of the literature, which includes an additional seven studies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of collaborative care approaches in comparison with standard care (or other non-collaborative care interventions) for people with diagnoses of SMI who are living in the community.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Study-Based Register of Trials (10 February 2021). We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders (CCMD) controlled trials register (all available years to 6 June 2016). Subsequent searches on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO together with the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (with an overlap) were run on 17 December 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where interventions described as 'collaborative care' were compared with 'standard care' for adults (18+ years) living in the community with a diagnosis of SMI. SMI was defined as schizophrenia, other types of schizophrenia-like psychosis or bipolar affective disorder. The primary outcomes of interest were: quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions at 12 months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of authors independently extracted data. We assessed the quality and certainty of the evidence using RoB 2 (for the primary outcomes) and GRADE. We compared treatment effects between collaborative care and standard care. We divided outcomes into short-term (up to six months), medium-term (seven to 12 months) and long-term (over 12 months). For dichotomous data we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and for continuous data we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used random-effects meta-analyses due to substantial levels of heterogeneity across trials. We created a summary of findings table using GRADEpro.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight RCTs (1165 participants) are included in this review. Two met the criteria for type A collaborative care (intervention comprised of the four core components). The remaining six met the criteria for type B (described as collaborative care by the trialists, but not comprised of the four core components). The composition and purpose of the interventions varied across studies. For most outcomes there was low- or very low-certainty evidence. We found three studies that assessed the quality of life of participants at 12 months. Quality of life was measured using the SF-12 and the WHOQOL-BREF and the mean endpoint mental health component scores were reported at 12 months. Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (mental health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.32; 3 RCTs, 227 participants). Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (physical health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.33; 3 RCTs, 237 participants). Furthermore, in the medium term (at 12 months) low-certainty evidence did not show a difference between collaborative care and standard care in mental state (binary) (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.28; 1 RCT, 253 participants) or in the risk of being admitted to a psychiatric hospital at 12 months (RR 5.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 39.57; 1 RCT, 253 participants). One study indicated an improvement in disability (proxy for social functioning) at 12 months in the collaborative care arm compared to usual care (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.95; 1 RCT, 253 participants); we deemed this low-certainty evidence. Personal recovery and satisfaction/experience of care outcomes were not reported in any of the included studies. The data from one study indicated that the collaborative care treatment was more expensive than standard care (mean difference (MD) international dollars (Int$) 493.00, 95% CI 345.41 to 640.59) in the short term. Another study found the collaborative care intervention to be slightly less expensive at three years.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review does not provide evidence to indicate that collaborative care is more effective than standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) in relation to our primary outcomes (quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions). The evidence would be improved by better reporting, higher-quality RCTs and the assessment of underlying mechanisms of collaborative care. We advise caution in utilising the information in this review to assess the effectiveness of collaborative care.

Interventions for improving health literacy in migrants

BACKGROUND

Health literacy (HL) is a determinant of health and important for autonomous decision-making. Migrants are at high risk for limited HL. Improving HL is important for equitable promotion of migrants' health.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for improving HL in migrants. To assess whether female or male migrants respond differently to the identified interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran electronic searches to 2 February 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL. We also searched trial registries. We used a study filter for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (RCT classifier).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs and cluster-RCTs addressing HL either as a concept or its components (access, understand, appraise, apply health information).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane and followed the PRISMA-E guidelines. Outcome categories were: a) HL, b) quality of life (QoL), c) knowledge, d) health outcomes, e) health behaviour, f) self-efficacy, g) health service use and h) adverse events. We conducted meta-analysis where possible, and reported the remaining results as a narrative synthesis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 28 RCTs and six cluster-RCTs (8249 participants), all conducted in high-income countries. Participants were migrants with a wide range of conditions. All interventions were adapted to culture, language and literacy. We did not find evidence that HL interventions cause harm, but only two studies assessed adverse events (e.g. anxiety). Many studies reported results for short-term assessments (less than six weeks after total programme completion), reported here. For several comparisons, there were also findings at later time points, which are presented in the review text. Compared with no HL intervention (standard care/no intervention) or an unrelated HL intervention (similar intervention but different information topic) Self-management programmes (SMP) probably improve self-efficacy slightly (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.50; 2 studies, 333 participants; moderate certainty). SMP may improve HIV-related HL (understanding (mean difference (MD) 4.25, 95% CI 1.32 to 7.18); recognition of HIV terms (MD 3.32, 95% CI 1.28 to 5.36)) (1 study, 69 participants). SMP may slightly improve health behaviours (3 studies, 514 participants), but may have little or no effect on knowledge (2 studies, 321 participants) or subjective health status (MD 0.38, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.89; 1 study, 69 participants) (low certainty). We are uncertain of the effects of SMP on QoL, health service use or adverse events due to a lack of evidence. HL skills building courses (HLSBC) may improve knowledge (MD 10.87, 95% CI 5.69 to 16.06; 2 studies, 111 participants) and any generic HL (SMD 0.48, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.75; 2 studies, 229 participants), but may have little or no effect on depression literacy (MD 0.17, 95% CI -1.28 to 1.62) or any health behaviour (2 studies, 229 participants) (low certainty). We are uncertain if HLSBC improve QoL, health outcomes, health service use, self-efficacy or adverse events, due to very low-certainty or a lack of evidence. Audio-/visual education without personal feedback (AVE) probably improves depression literacy (MD 8.62, 95% CI 7.51 to 9.73; 1 study, 202 participants) and health service use (MD -0.59, 95% CI -1.11 to -0.07; 1 study, 157 participants), but probably has little or no effect on health behaviour (risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.25; 1 study, 135 participants) (moderate certainty). AVE may improve self-efficacy (MD 3.51, 95% CI 2.53 to 4.49; 1 study, 133 participants) and may slightly improve knowledge (MD 8.44, 95% CI -2.56 to 19.44; 2 studies, 293 participants) and intention to seek depression treatment (MD 1.8, 95% CI 0.43 to 3.17), with little or no effect on depression (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.10) (low certainty). No evidence was found for QoL and adverse events. Adapted medical instruction may improve understanding of health information (3 studies, 478 participants), with little or no effect on medication adherence (MD 0.5, 95% CI -0.1 to 1.1; 1 study, 200 participants) (low certainty). No evidence was found for QoL, health outcomes, knowledge, health service use, self-efficacy or adverse events. Compared with written information on the same topic SMP probably improves health numeracy slightly (MD 0.7, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.25) and probably improves print literacy (MD 9, 95% CI 2.9 to 15.1; 1 study, 209 participants) and self-efficacy (SMD 0.47, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.64; 4 studies, 552 participants) (moderate certainty). SMP may improve any disease-specific HL (SMD 0.67, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.07; 4 studies, 955 participants), knowledge (MD 11.45, 95% CI 4.75 to 18.15; 6 studies, 1101 participants) and some health behaviours (4 studies, 797 participants), with little or no effect on health information appraisal (MD 1.15, 95% CI -0.23 to 2.53; 1 study, 329 participants) (low certainty). We are uncertain whether SMP improves QoL, health outcomes, health service use or adverse events, due to a lack of evidence or low/very low-certainty evidence. AVE probably has little or no effect on diabetes HL (MD 2, 95% CI -0.15 to 4.15; 1 study, 240 participants), but probably improves information appraisal (MD -9.88, 95% CI -12.87 to -6.89) and application (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.77) (1 study, 608 participants; moderate certainty). AVE may slightly improve knowledge (MD 8.35, 95% CI -0.32 to 17.02; low certainty). No short-term evidence was found for QoL, depression, health behaviour, self-efficacy, health service use or adverse events. AVE compared with another AVE We are uncertain whether narrative videos are superior to factual knowledge videos as the evidence is of very low certainty. Gender differences Female migrants' diabetes HL may improve slightly more than that of males, when receiving AVE (MD 5.00, 95% CI 0.62 to 9.38; 1 study, 118 participants), but we do not know whether female or male migrants benefit differently from other interventions due to very low-certainty or a lack of evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Adequately powered studies measuring long-term effects (more than six months) of HL interventions in female and male migrants are needed, using well-validated tools and representing various healthcare systems.

Community Health Workers as Puentes/Bridges to Increase COVID-19 Health Equity in Latinx Communities of the Southwest U.S

This study documents the pivotal role that Community Health Workers (CHW) played while supporting underserved Latinx communities affected by COVID-19-related health inequities. With the support of CHWs' agencies historically serving three Latinx-dense counties in Arizona, we recruited CHWs who participated in a state-wide COVID-19 testing project. Using phenomenology and narrative qualitative research methods, five focus groups were facilitated in Spanish between August and November 2021. Bilingual research team members conducted the analysis of the Spanish verbatim transcripts and CHWs reviewed the results for validity. Three interconnected themes reflected the CHWs experiences: (1) CHWs as puentes/bridges with deep community embeddedness through shared experiences and social/cultural context, (2) CHWs as communication brokers and transformational agents, playing a pivotal role in responding to the health and socioeconomic challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, (3) CHWs satisfaction and frustration due to their dual role as committed community members but unrecognized and undervalued frontline public health workers. These findings emphasize the CHWs' commitment towards supporting their communities, even amidst the stressors of the pandemic. It is important to continue to integrate the role of CHWs into the larger healthcare system as opposed to relegating them to short term engagements as was the case during the COVID-19 pandemic. This article provides a set of practice, policy, and future research recommendations, emphasizing the need to allocate greater budgetary and training resources in support of CHWs.

Examining Associations between Community Health Worker-Rated Health and Mental Health among Latino Adults with Chronic Disease

Latinos with chronic disease often experience comorbid depression, but confront barriers to mental health treatment. Community health workers (CHWs) develop trusting relationships with the communities they serve, and may be uniquely positioned to identify Latinos with mental health care needs. Research has not examined whether their rating of clients' health is indicative of their mental health. This mixed-methods study examines CHWs' appraisals of Latino adults' health and their relation to mental health outcomes, and explores factors informing CHWs' rating of health status. The current study utilized baseline data from the Linking Individual Needs to Community and Clinical Services (LINKS) study. We assessed associations between CHW-rated health (CHWRH), or rating of health status as poor-excellent, and mental health outcomes with multilevel linear regression modelling. We qualitatively analyzed CHWs' written perceptions of participants' health status to understand what influenced their health rating. The quantitative results showed that CWHRH was significantly related to depressive symptoms and emotional problems severity. The qualitative results showed that CHWs took a holistic and ecological approach in rating health. The findings suggest that CHWRH could be indicative of mental health among Latino adults. Further studies investigating CHWRH as an independent indicator of mental health are warranted.

Is Theory Guiding Our Work? A Scoping Review on the Use of Implementation Theories, Frameworks, and Models to Bring Community Health Workers into Health Care Settings

Community health workers (CHWs) are becoming a well-recognized workforce to help reduce health disparities and improve health equity. Although evidence demonstrates the value of engaging CHWs in health care teams, there is a need to describe best practices for integrating CHWs into US health care settings. The use of existing health promotion and implementation theories could guide the research and implementation of health interventions conducted by CHWs. We conducted a standard 5-step scoping review plus stakeholder engagement to provide insight into this topic. Using PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science, we identified CHW intervention studies in health care settings published between 2000 and 2017. Studies were abstracted by 2 researchers for characteristics and reported use of theory. Our final review included 50 articles published between January 2000 and April 2017. Few studies used implementation theories to understand the facilitators and barriers to CHW integration. Those studies that incorporated implementation theories used RE-AIM, intervention mapping, cultural tailoring, PRECEDE-PROCEED, and the diffusion of innovation. Although most studies did not report using implementation theories, some constructs of implementation such as fidelity or perceived benefits were assessed. In addition, studies that reported intervention development often cited specific theories, such as the transtheoretical or health belief model, that helped facilitate the development of their program. Our results are consistent with other literature describing poor uptake and use of implementation theory. Further translation of implementation theories for CHW integration is recommended.

Interventions to Enhance Patient and Family Engagement Among Adults With Multiple Chronic Conditions: A Systematic Scoping Review

PURPOSE

In the United States, 42% of adults, and 81% of adults over 65 years of age live with multiple chronic condition (MCC). Current interventions to facilitate engagement in care focus primarily on the patient; however, many individuals with MCC manage and live with their conditions within the context of their family. This review sought to identify interventions used to facilitate patient and/or family engagement among adults with MCC.

METHODS

We adhered as closely as possible to PRISMA guidelines and conducted a systematic scoping review using a modified approach by Arksey and O'Malley. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus using terms related to MCC, patient and family engagement, and intervention. We included articles that: (1) were published in English; (2) were peer-reviewed; (3) described an engagement intervention (with or without a comparator); and (4) targeted individuals with MCC. We abstracted data from included articles and classified them using the Multidimensional Framework for Patient and Family Engagement in Health and Health Care, and the Classification Model of Patient Engagement.

RESULTS

We identified 21 discrete interventions. Six (29%) were classified as having the highest degree of engagement. Eighteen (85%) focused on engagement at the direct care level. Only one was specifically designed to engage families.

CONCLUSIONS

Many engagement interventions currently exist for adults with MCC. Few of these interventions foster the highest degree of engagement; most focus on engagement at the level of direct care and do not specifically target family member involvement.

Longitudinal Impact of a Randomized Clinical Trial to Improve Family Function, Reduce Maternal Stress and Improve Child Outcomes in Families of Children with ADHD

Objective Evaluate the efficacy of a 12 month nursing case-management intervention over a period of 18 months, 6 months after the end of intervention, for families of children attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methods Mother and child dyads were enrolled to participate in a randomized controlled clinical trial. Children were 4-18 years old. Data were collected at baseline, 6, 12, and 18 months or 6 months after the termination of direct intervention. Longitudinal analyses, using generalized estimating equations, were conducted to assess change in study outcomes relating to family function, maternal stress, and child behavior over the 18 month period. Results Compared to control families, some family function outcomes were moderately improved in the intervention group. In particular, intervention families demonstrated substantial improvement in implementing family behavior controls (p value = 0.038) and improvement in family satisfaction (not statistically significant p = 0.062). Although there was improvement in the overall family function measure there was not a statistically significant difference between groups. Maternal stress and child behavior outcomes were not significantly different between control and intervention groups by the end of the intervention. Conclusions for Practice Addressing ADHD is complex and requires the assessment of comorbidities that might exacerbate negative behavior. Our findings support the latest American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines to use behavioral therapy as the first line of treatment in young children. Nursing case-management interventions that provide direct family education and improve family function, especially with respect to providing structure and behavior control, may complement and facilitate behavioral therapy for treatment of ADHD and improving child behavior.