Does a quality improvement intervention for anxiety result in differential outcomes for lower-income patients?

Access to Mental Healthcare in the 21st Century: An Evolutionary Concept Analysis

BACKGROUND

One of the most important aspects of receiving medical care is access to that care. For people with mental illness who have greater healthcare needs and are at risk for poor health outcomes, reduced access to care constitutes a crisis. While the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic continues to affect the United States, specifying what it means to have access to mental healthcare is more critical than ever.

AIMS

The aims of this concept analysis are to review definitions and descriptions of access to mental healthcare in the literature and to synthesize the relevance of these findings to inform future research, theory development, policy, and practice.

METHODS

The concept of access to mental healthcare was analyzed using Rodgers's evolutionary concept analysis method. CINAHL, PsycINFO, and MEDLINE were queried for peer-reviewed articles about access to mental healthcare published from January 2010 to April 2020 (n = 72). Data were reviewed for concept antecedents, attributes, consequences, surrogate, and related terms.

RESULTS

Five models of access to mental healthcare were identified, with several antecedents and consequences: utilization, economic loss/gain, incarceration, and patient/provider satisfaction. Cross-sectional and predictive studies highlighted three interrelated attributes: clinical management, healthcare delivery, and connectedness.

CONCLUSIONS

The concept of access to mental healthcare is often used stagnantly across disciplines to create health policies, yet the concept is transformative. Future research requires up-to-date operational definitions of access to mental healthcare to target interdisciplinary approaches.

Advancing mental health equality: a mapping review of interventions, economic evaluations and barriers and facilitators

BACKGROUND

This work aimed to identify studies of interventions seeking to address mental health inequalities, studies assessing the economic impact of such interventions and factors which act as barriers and those that can facilitate interventions to address inequalities in mental health care.

METHODS

A systematic mapping method was chosen. Studies were included if they: (1) focused on a population with: (a) mental health disorders, (b) protected or other characteristics putting them at risk of experiencing mental health inequalities; (2) addressed an intervention focused on addressing mental health inequalities; and (3) met criteria for one or more of three research questions: (i) primary research studies (any study design) or systematic reviews reporting effectiveness findings for an intervention or interventions, (ii) studies reporting economic evaluation findings, (iii) primary research studies (any study design) or systematic reviews identifying or describing, potential barriers or facilitators to interventions. A bibliographic search of MEDLINE, HMIC, ASSIA, Social Policy & Practice, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts and PsycINFO spanned January 2008 to December 2018. Study selection was performed according to inclusion criteria. Data were extracted and tabulated to map studies and summarise published research on mental health inequalities. A visual representation of the mapping review (a mapping diagram) is included.

RESULTS

Overall, 128 studies met inclusion criteria: 115 primary studies and 13 systematic reviews. Of those, 94 looked at interventions, 6 at cost-effectiveness and 36 at barriers and facilitators. An existing taxonomy of disparities interventions was used and modified to categorise interventions by type and strategy. Most of the identified interventions focused on addressing socioeconomic factors, race disparities and age-related issues. The most frequently used intervention strategy was providing psychological support. Barriers and associated facilitators were categorised into groups including (not limited to) access to care, communication issues and financial constraints.

CONCLUSIONS

The mapping review was useful in assessing the spread of literature and identifying highly researched areas versus prominent gaps. The findings are useful for clinicians, commissioners and service providers seeking to understand strategies to support the advancement of mental health equality for different populations and could be used to inform further research and support local decision-making.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

The role of gender in moderating treatment outcome in collaborative care for anxiety

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to test whether gender moderates intervention effects in the Coordinated Anxiety Learning and Management (CALM) intervention, a 12-month, randomized controlled trial of a collaborative care intervention for anxiety disorders (panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and social anxiety disorder) in 17 primary care clinics in California, Washington, and Arkansas.

METHODS

Participants (N=1,004) completed measures of symptoms (Brief Symptom Inventory [BSI]) and functioning (mental and physical health components of the 12-Item Short Form [MCS and PCS] and Healthy Days, Restricted Activity Days Scale) at baseline, six, 12, and 18 months. Data on dose, engagement, and beliefs about psychotherapy were collected for patients in the collaborative care group.

RESULTS

Gender moderated the relationship between treatment and its outcome on the BSI, MCS, and Healthy Days measures but not on the PCS. Women who received collaborative care showed clinical improvements on the BSI, MHC, and Healthy Days that were significantly different from outcomes for women in usual care. There were no differences for men in collaborative care compared with usual care on any measures. In the intervention group, women compared with men attended more sessions of psychotherapy, completed more modules of therapy, expressed more commitment, and viewed psychotherapy as more helpful.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings contribute to the broader literature on treatment heterogeneity, in particular the influence of gender, and may inform personalized care for people seeking anxiety treatment in primary care settings.

A randomized trial of collaborative depression care in obstetrics and gynecology clinics: socioeconomic disadvantage and treatment response

OBJECTIVE

The authors evaluated whether an obstetrics-gynecology clinic-based collaborative depression care intervention is differentially effective compared with usual care for socially disadvantaged women with either no health insurance or with public coverage compared with those with commercial insurance.

METHOD

The study was a two-site randomized controlled trial with an 18-month follow-up. Women were recruited who screened positive (a score of at least 10 on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9) and met criteria for major depression or dysthymia. The authors tested whether insurance status had a differential effect on continuous depression outcomes between the intervention and usual care over 18 months. They also assessed differences between the intervention and usual care in quality of depression care and dichotomous clinical outcomes (a decrease of at least 50% in depressive symptom severity and patient-rated improvement on the Patient Global Improvement Scale).

RESULTS

The treatment effect was significantly associated with insurance status. Compared with patients with commercial insurance, those with no insurance or with public coverage had greater recovery from depression symptoms with collaborative care than with usual care over the 18-month follow-up period. At the 12-month follow-up, the effect size for depression improvement compared with usual care among women with no insurance or with public coverage was 0.81 (95% CI=0.41, 0.95), whereas it was 0.39 (95% CI=-0.08, 0.84) for women with commercial insurance.

CONCLUSIONS

Collaborative depression care adapted to obstetrics-gynecology settings had a greater impact on depression outcomes for socially disadvantaged women with no insurance or with public coverage compared with women with commercial insurance.

Collaborative chronic care models for mental health conditions: cumulative meta-analysis and metaregression to guide future research and implementation

OBJECTIVE

Prior meta-analysis indicates that collaborative chronic care models (CCMs) improve mental and physical health outcomes for individuals with mental disorders. This study aimed to investigate the stability of evidence over time and identify patient and intervention factors associated with CCM effects to facilitate implementation and sustainability of CCMs in clinical practice.

METHODS

We reviewed 53 CCM trials that analyzed depression, mental quality of life (QOL), or physical QOL outcomes. Cumulative meta-analysis and metaregression were supplemented by descriptive investigations across and within trials.

RESULTS

Most trials targeted depression in the primary care setting, and cumulative meta-analysis indicated that effect sizes favoring CCM quickly achieved significance for depression outcomes, and more recently achieved significance for mental and physical QOL. Four of 6 CCM elements (patient self-management support, clinical information systems, system redesign, and provider decision support) were common among reviewed trials, whereas 2 elements (health care organization support and linkages to community resources) were rare. No single CCM element was statistically associated with the success of the model. Similarly, metaregression did not identify specific factors associated with CCM effectiveness. Nonetheless, results within individual trials suggest that increased illness severity predicts CCM outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant CCM trials have been derived primarily from 4 original CCM elements. Nonetheless, implementing and sustaining this established model will require health care organization support. Although CCMs have typically been tested as population-based interventions, evidence supports stepped care application to more severely ill individuals. Future priorities include developing implementation strategies to support adoption and sustainability of the model in clinical settings while maximizing fit of this multicomponent framework to local contextual factors.