The Checklist Manifesto in action: integrating depression treatment into routine cardiac care

Increasing Uptake of Depression Screening and Treatment Guidelines in Cardiac Patients: A Behavioral and Implementation Science Approach to Developing a Theory-Informed, Multilevel Implementation Strategy

BACKGROUND

Depression leads to poor health outcomes in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). Despite guidelines recommending screening and treatment of depressed patients with CHD, few patients receive optimal care. We applied behavioral and implementation science methods to (1) identify generalizable, multilevel barriers to depression screening and treatment in patients with CHD and (2) develop a theory-informed, multilevel implementation strategy for promoting guideline adoption.

METHODS

We conducted a narrative review of barriers to depression screening and treatment in patients with CHD (ie, medications, exercise, cardiac rehabilitation, or therapy) comprising data from 748 study participants. Informed by the behavior change wheel framework and Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change, we defined multilevel target behaviors, characterized determinants (capability, opportunity, motivation), and mapped barriers to feasible, acceptable, and equitable intervention functions and behavior change techniques to develop a multilevel implementation strategy, targeting health care systems/providers and patients.

RESULTS

We identified implementation barriers at the system/provider level (eg, Capability: knowledge; Opportunity: workflow integration; Motivation: ownership) and patient level (eg, Capability: knowledge; Opportunity: mobility; Motivation: symptom denial). Acceptable, feasible, and equitable intervention functions included education, persuasion, environmental restructuring, and enablement. Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change strategies included learning collaborative, audit, feedback, and educational materials. The final multicomponent strategy (iHeart DepCare) for promoting depression screening/treatment included problem-solving meetings with clinic staff (system); educational/motivational videos, electronic health record reminders/decisional support (provider); and a shared decision-making (electronic shared decision-making) tool with several functions for patients, for example, patient activation, patient treatment selection support.

CONCLUSIONS

We applied implementation and behavioral science methods to identify implementation barriers and to develop a multilevel implementation strategy for increasing uptake of depression screening and treatment in patients with CHD as a use case. The multilevel implementation strategy will be evaluated in a future hybrid II effectiveness-implementation trial.

Efficacy of Blended Collaborative Care for Patients With Heart Failure and Comorbid Depression: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Depression is often comorbid in patients with heart failure (HF) and is associated with worse clinical outcomes. However, depression generally goes unrecognized and untreated in this population.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether a blended collaborative care program for treating both HF and depression can improve clinical outcomes more than collaborative care for HF only and physicians' usual care (UC).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This 3-arm, single-blind, randomized effectiveness trial recruited 756 participants with HF with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (<45%) from 8 university-based and community hospitals in southwestern Pennsylvania between March 2014 and October 2017 and observed them until November 2018. Participants included 629 who screened positive for depression during hospitalization and 2 weeks postdischarge and 127 randomly sampled participants without depression to facilitate further comparisons. Key analyses were performed November 2018 to March 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

Separate physician-supervised nurse teams provided either 12 months of collaborative care for HF and depression ("blended" care) or collaborative care for HF only (enhanced UC [eUC]).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was mental health-related quality of life (mHRQOL) as measured by the Mental Component Summary of the 12-item Short Form Health Survey (MCS-12). Secondary outcomes included mood, physical function, HF pharmacotherapy use, rehospitalizations, and mortality.

RESULTS

Of the 756 participants (mean [SD] age, 64.0 [13.0] years; 425 [56%] male), those with depression reported worse mHRQOL, mood, and physical function but were otherwise similar to those without depression (eg, mean left ventricular ejection fraction, 28%). At 12 months, blended care participants reported a 4.47-point improvement on the MCS-12 vs UC (95% CI, 1.65 to 7.28; P = .002), but similar scores as the eUC arm (1.12; 95% CI, -1.15 to 3.40; P = .33). Blended care participants also reported better mood than UC participants (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Depression effect size, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.67) and eUC participants (0.24; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.41), but physical function, HF pharmacotherapy use, rehospitalizations, and mortality were similar by both baseline depression and randomization status.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this randomized clinical trial of patients with HF and depression, telephone-delivered blended collaborative care produced modest improvements in mHRQOL, the primary outcome, on the MCS-12 vs UC but not eUC. Although blended care did not differentially affect rehospitalization and mortality, it improved mood better than eUC and UC and thus may enable organized health care systems to provide effective first-line depression care to medically complex patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02044211.