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

Self-care interventions to assist family physicians with mental health care of older patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: Feasibility, acceptability, and outcomes of a pilot randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has required family physicians to rapidly address increasing mental health problems with limited resources. Vulnerable home-based seniors with chronic physical conditions and commonly undermanaged symptoms of anxiety and depression were recruited in this pilot study to compare two brief self-care intervention strategies for the management of symptoms of depression and/or anxiety.

METHODS

We conducted a pilot RCT to compare two tele-health strategies to address mental health symptoms either with 1) validated CBT self-care tools plus up to three telephone calls from a trained lay coach vs. 2) the CBT self-guided tools alone. The interventions were abbreviated from those previously trialed by our team, to enable their completion in 2 months. Objectives were to assess the feasibility of delivering the interventions during a pandemic (recruitment and retention); and assess the comparative acceptability of the interventions across the two groups (satisfaction and tool use); and estimate preliminary comparative effectiveness of the interventions on severity of depression and anxiety symptoms. Because we were interested in whether the interventions were acceptable to a wide range of older adults, no mental health screening for eligibility was performed.

RESULTS

90 eligible patients were randomized. 93% of study completers consulted the self-care tools and 84% of those in the coached arm received at least some coaching support. Satisfaction scores were high among participants in both groups. No difference in depression and anxiety outcomes between the coached and non-coached participants was observed, but coaching was found to have a significant effect on participants' use and perceived helpfulness of the tools.

CONCLUSION

Both interventions were feasible and acceptable to patients. Trained lay coaching increased patients' engagement with the tools. Self-care tools offer a low cost and acceptable remote activity that can be targeted to those with immediate needs. While effectiveness results were inconclusive, this may be due to the lack of eligibility screening for mental health symptoms, abbreviated toolkit, and fewer coaching sessions than those used in our previous effective interventions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0460937.

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.