Long-term effects of a collaborative care intervention on process of care in family practices in Germany: a 24-month follow-up study of a cluster randomized controlled trial

Interprofessional collaboration in primary care: what effect on patient health? A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

In a period of change in the organization of primary care, Interprofessional Collaboration (IPC) is presented as one of the solutions to health issues. Although the number of inter-professional interventions grounded in primary care increases in all developed countries, evidence on the effects of these collaborations on patient-centred outcomes is patchy. The objective of our study was to assess the effects of IPC grounded in the primary care setting on patient-centred outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review using the PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from 01/01/1995 to 01/03/2021, according to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies reporting the effects of IPC in primary care on patient health outcomes were included. The quality of the studies was assessed using the revised Downs and Black checklist.

RESULTS

Sixty-five articles concerning 61 interventions were analysed. A total of 43 studies were prospective and randomized. Studies were classified into 3 main categories as follows: 1) studies with patients at cardiovascular risk (28 studies)-including diabetes (18 studies) and arterial hypertension (5 studies); 2) studies including elderly and/or polypathological patients (18 studies); and 3) patients with symptoms of mental or physical disorders (15 studies). The number of included patients varied greatly (from 50 to 312,377). The proportion of studies that reported a positive effect of IPC on patient-centred outcomes was as follows: 23 out of the 28 studies including patients at cardiovascular risk, 8 out of the 18 studies of elderly or polypathological patients, and 11 out of the 12 studies of patients with mental or physical disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that IPC is effective in the management of patients at cardiovascular risk. In elderly or polypathological patients and in patients with mental or physical disorders, the number of studies remains very limited, and the results are heterogeneous. Researchers should be encouraged to perform studies based on comparative designs: it would increase evidence on the positive effect and benefits of IPC on patient variables.

[Multiprofessional outpatient psychosocial treatment for elderly patients with mental disorders]

Mental disorders contribute substantially to the loss of quality of life and life expectancy in old age. Life expectancy is reduced especially by the bidirectional interaction with heart diseases, diabetes mellitus as well as the depression-specific risk of suicide. Depression in old age is a strong risk factor for nursing home placement, which is usually an undesired outcome for older people. Utilization of mental health services is hindered by self-stigmatization and prejudice; however, according to recent surveys older people increasingly value psychotherapeutic services. Shortcomings in the diagnostics and therapy in the primary treatment of old age depression have stimulated research in low-threshold options in primary care and collaborative multiprofessional outpatient interventions in many countries. The core features of collaborative care approaches are improved diagnostics, stepped-care protocols, continuous disease monitoring, and access to psychiatric and psychotherapeutic supervision or services. Collaborative multiprofessional outpatient approaches have been shown to be superior for the treatment of old age depression compared to treatment as usual.

Classes of depression symptom trajectories in patients with major depression receiving a collaborative care intervention

PURPOSE

Collaborative care is effective in improving symptoms of patients with depression. The aims of this study were to characterize symptom trajectories in patients with major depression during one year of collaborative care and to explore associations between baseline characteristics and symptom trajectories.

METHODS

We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial in primary care. The collaborative care intervention comprised case management and behavioral activation. We used the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) to assess symptom severity as the primary outcome. Statistical analyses comprised latent growth mixture modeling and a hierarchical binary logistic regression model.

RESULTS

We included 74 practices and 626 patients (310 intervention and 316 control recipients) at baseline. Based on a minimum of 12 measurement points for each intervention recipient, we identified two latent trajectories, which we labeled 'fast improvers' (60.5%) and 'slow improvers' (39.5%). At all measurements after baseline, 'fast improvers' presented higher PHQ mean values than 'slow improvers'. At baseline, 'fast improvers' presented fewer physical conditions, higher health-related quality of life, and had made fewer suicide attempts in their history.

CONCLUSIONS

A notable proportion of 39.5% of patients improved only 'slowly' and probably needed more intense treatment. The third follow-up in month two could well be a sensible time to adjust treatment to support 'slow improvers'.

Shared care across the interface between primary and specialty care in management of long term conditions

BACKGROUND

Shared care has been used in the management of many chronic conditions with the assumption that it delivers better care than primary or specialty care alone; however, little is known about the effectiveness of shared care.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of shared care health service interventions designed to improve the management of chronic disease across the primary/specialty care interface. This is an update of a previously published review.Secondary questions include the following:1. Which shared care interventions or portions of shared care interventions are most effective?2. What do the most effective systems have in common?

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library to 12 October 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

One review author performed the initial abstract screen; then two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) evaluating the effectiveness of shared care interventions for people with chronic conditions in primary care and community settings. The intervention was compared with usual care in that setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies, evaluated study quality and judged the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We conducted a meta-analysis of results when possible and carried out a narrative synthesis of the remainder of the results. We presented the results in a 'Summary of findings' table, using a tabular format to show effect sizes for all outcome types.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 42 studies of shared care interventions for chronic disease management (N = 18,859), 39 of which were RCTs, two CBAs and one an NRCT. Of these 42 studies, 41 examined complex multi-faceted interventions and lasted from six to 24 months. Overall, our confidence in results regarding the effectiveness of interventions ranged from moderate to high certainty. Results showed probably few or no differences in clinical outcomes overall with a tendency towards improved blood pressure management in the small number of studies on shared care for hypertension, chronic kidney disease and stroke (mean difference (MD) 3.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.68 to 5.25)(based on moderate-certainty evidence). Mental health outcomes improved, particularly in response to depression treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 1.62; six studies, N = 1708) and recovery from depression (RR 2.59, 95% CI 1.57 to 4.26; 10 studies, N = 4482) in studies examining the 'stepped care' design of shared care interventions (based on high-certainty evidence). Investigators noted modest effects on mean depression scores (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.29, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.20; six studies, N = 3250). Differences in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), processes of care and participation and default rates in shared care services were probably limited (based on moderate-certainty evidence). Studies probably showed little or no difference in hospital admissions, service utilisation and patient health behaviours (with evidence of moderate certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that shared care improves depression outcomes and probably has mixed or limited effects on other outcomes. Methodological shortcomings, particularly inadequate length of follow-up, may account in part for these limited effects. Review findings support the growing evidence base for shared care in the management of depression, particularly stepped care models of shared care. Shared care interventions for other conditions should be developed within research settings, with account taken of the complexity of such interventions and awareness of the need to carry out longer studies to test effectiveness and sustainability over time.

The 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale translated in German and validated against objective and subjective polypharmacy adherence measures in cardiovascular patients

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To translate in German the 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8D). To validate it against objective and subjective measures of adherence in cardiovascular patients with polypharmacy.

METHODS

A standard forward-backward procedure was used to translate the MMAS-8 into German. Validation took place on a convenience sample of ambulatory patients on chronic antiplatelet therapy between June 2010 and June 2011. Objective adherence was obtained from electronically monitored multi-drug punch cards. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha coefficient, construct validity using exploratory factor analyses and correlations between MMAS-8D and related measures. Convergent validity was assessed with a subjective questionnaire about beliefs about medicines (BMQ Specific, two sub-scales).

RESULTS

A total of 70 patients were included (mean age 65.7 ± 9.9 years; 31.4% women). The mean score of the MMAS-8D was 7.5 (SD 0.8; range 4.5-8). Moderate internal consistency (alpha = 0.31) was observed due to multidimensionality of the scale. Factor analysis yielded four components that accounted for 71.7% of the total variance. Convergent validity was supported by significant correlations with BMQ Necessity (r = 0.31, P < 0.01), BMQ Concerns (r = -0.16, P < 0.05) and with electronic adherence reports (U-values 44 and 471, P < 0.05). Platelet aggregation values were within therapeutic range for 80% of the patients. Blood values of the antiplatelet agent within therapeutic range were associated with a higher MMAS-8D score (U-value 125, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The German MMAS-8 appears to be a reliable instrument to catch medication adherence in cardiovascular patients. It may be useful in patients with chronic therapy for detecting non-adherence.