Collaborative health literate depression care among predominantly Hispanic patients with coronary heart disease in safety net care

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.

Adaptation models, barriers, and facilitators for cultural safety in telepsychiatry: A systematic scoping review

Introduction: Indigenous peoples, and racial and ethnic minorities around the world experience significant mental health inequities. Telepsychiatry can contribute to addressing these inequities among these populations. However, it is first crucial to ensure the cultural safety of this tool as a critical step toward health equity. This review aimed to collate evidence regarding cultural adaptations, barriers, opportunities, and facilitators for telepsychiatry services supporting minority groups. Method: Using the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guideline, we conducted a systematic scoping review and thematic analysis. Six databases were searched using the PICO framework, i.e., population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes.. Additional literature was identified through reference lists screening. We developed a table for data extraction, and the extracted data were further analyzed following Braun and Clarke's approach for thematic analysis. Results: A total of 1514 citations were screened with a final total of 58 articles included in the review. The themes related to telepsychiatry cultural adaptations emphasize the crucial role of community involvement and quality service delivery. Identified barriers were associated with service and infrastructure, and service users' socioeconomic and cultural contexts. Opportunities and facilitators for telepsychiatry were enhanced access and rapport, and multi-organizational collaborations and partnerships. Discussion: This review identified factors that can guide the adaptation of telepsychiatry evidence-based interventions to meet the needs of Indigenous peoples and racial and ethnic minorities. Telepsychiatry programs must be specifically designed for the population they seek to serve, and this review offers emerging insights into critical factors to consider in their development.

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.

Cultural Humility for Consultation-Liaison Psychiatrists

BACKGROUND

Case presentation and analysis is a useful way to revisit key clinical themes, broad concepts, and teach others, especially when it comes to cross-cultural clinical issues. Patients from different cultural backgrounds tend to have different explanatory models of illnesses and related help seeking behaviors. Ineffective communication between clinicians and patients from nonmajority cultural groups may lead to less satisfaction with care and disparities in access to health care and in treatment outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

To address health disparities, psychiatrists need to be able to understand the illness beliefs of all patients, particularly those from diverse cultural backgrounds. Using cultural humility to work with patients from all cultures by understanding the patients' values and preferences is a key attitude for successful cross-cultural clinical encounters.

Collaborative Care for Depression among Patients with Limited English Proficiency: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) have high rates of depression, yet face challenges accessing effective care in outpatient settings. We undertook a systematic review to investigate the effectiveness of the collaborative care model for depression for LEP patients in primary care.

METHODS

We queried online PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL and EMBASE databases (January 1, 2000, to June 10, 2017) for quantitative studies comparing collaborative care to usual care to treat depression in adults with LEP in primary care. We evaluated the impact of collaborative care on depressive symptoms or on depression treatment. Two reviewers independently extracted key data from the studies and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane bias and quality assessment tool (RCTs) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (non-RCTs).

RESULTS

Of 86 titles identified, 15 were included (representing 9 studies: 5 RCTs, 3 cohort studies, and 1 case-control study). Studies included 4859 participants; 2679 (55%) reported LEP. The majority spoke Spanish (93%). The wide variability in study design and outcome definitions precluded performing a meta-analysis. Follow-up ranged from 3 months to 2 years. Three of four high-quality RCTs reported that 13-25% more patients had improved depressive symptoms when treated with culturally tailored collaborative care compared to usual care; the last had high treatment in the control arm and found equal improvement. Two non-RCT studies suggest that Spanish-speaking patients may benefit as much as, if not more than, English-speaking patients treated with collaborative care. The remaining studies reported increased receipt of preferred depression treatment (therapy vs. antidepressants) in the intervention groups. Eight of nine studies used bilingual providers to deliver the intervention.

DISCUSSION

While limited by the number and variability of studies, the available research suggests that collaborative care for depression delivered by bilingual providers may be more effective than usual care among patients with LEP. Implementation studies of collaborative care, particularly among Asian and non-Spanish-speakers, are needed.

Self-Management of Heart Disease in Older Adults

The American Heart Association estimates that 81% of people who die of coronary heart disease are 65 years old or older. The leading risk health behaviors include physical inactivity, poor diet, smoking, and binge drinking. Using the 2011-2012 California Health Interview Survey (CHIS), this study looked at how self-management, which includes a plan developed by a medical professional and the confidence to manage one's disease, may decrease negative risk behaviors in older adults. The presence of a plan and increased self-efficacy decreased engagement in negative dietary behaviors and low physical activity. Implications for strategies that address heart disease and self-management are discussed.

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.

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

Depression frequently negatively affects patient overall self-care and social stress management within United States safety net care systems. Rates of major depression are significantly high among low-income predominantly Hispanic/Latino with chronic illness, such as diabetes and heart disease. The study design of the A Helping Hand to Activate Patient-Centered Depression Care among Low-income Patients (AHH) randomized clinical trial aims to enhance patient depression care receipt and overall bio-psychosocial self-care management. The AHH trial is conducted in collaboration with three Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (DHS) safety net clinics that provide Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) care. The study compares AHH intervention (AHH) in which community-based bilingual promotoras provide in-person or telephone patient engagement and intervention aimed to reduce the burden and strain on patients, families, and care providers by assessing, enhancing, and facilitating patient depression and co-morbid illness self-care management skill, and activating patient communication with clinic medical providers versus DHS PCMH team usual care (PCMHUC). AHH independent bilingual recruiters screened 1957 and enrolled 348 predominantly Hispanic/Latino patients, of whom 296 (85%) had diabetes, 14 (4%) with heart disease, and 38 (11%) with both diseases. Recruiters identified depressed patients by baseline Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores of 10 or more, completed baseline assessments, and randomized patients to either AHH or PCMHUC study group. The comprehensive assessments will be repeated at 6 and 12months by an independent bilingual follow-up interviewer. Baseline and outcome data include mental health assessment and treatment receipt, co-morbid illness self-care, social relationships, and environmental stressor assessments.

Demographic, clinical and psychosocial factors identify a high-risk group for depression screening among predominantly Hispanic patients with Type 2 diabetes in safety net care

OBJECTIVE

Identify biopsychosocial factors associated with depression for patients with Type 2 diabetes.

METHOD

A quasi-experimental clinical trial of 1293 patients was predominantly Hispanic (91%) female (62%), mean age 53 and average diabetes duration 10 years; 373 (29%) patients were depressed and assessed by Patient Health Questionnaire-9. Demographic, baseline clinical and psychosocial variables were compared between depressed and nondepressed patients.

RESULTS

Bivariate analyses found depression significantly associated (p<0.05) with female gender, diabetes emotional burden and regimen distress, BMI ≥ 30, lack of an A1C test, diabetes duration, poor self-care, number of diabetes symptoms and complications, functional and physical characteristics (pain, self-rated health condition, Short-Form Health Survey SF-physical, disability score and comorbid illnesses), as well as higher number of ICD-9 diagnoses and emergency room use. A multivariable regression model with stepwise selection identified six key risk factors: greater disability, diabetes symptoms and regimen distress, female gender, less diabetes self-care and lack of A1C. In addition, after controlling for identified six factors, the number of psychosocial stressors significantly associated with increased risk of depression (adjusted odds ratio=1.37, 95% confidence intervals: 1.18-1.58, p<.0001).

CONCLUSION

Knowing biopsychosocial factors could help primary care physicians and endocrinologists identify a high-risk group of patients needing depression screening.