A Comparison of Collaborative Care Outcomes in Two Health Care Systems: VA Clinics and Federally Qualified Health Centers

Sequenced Treatment Effectiveness for Posttraumatic Stress (STEPS) Trial: A protocol for a pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial with baseline results

BACKGROUND

There have only been two efficacy trials reporting a head-to-head comparison of medications and psychotherapy for PTSD, and neither was conducted in primary care. Therefore, this protocol paper describes a pragmatic trial that compares outcomes of primary care patients randomized to initially receive a brief trauma-focused psychotherapy or a choice of three antidepressants. In addition, because there are few trials examining the effectiveness of subsequent treatments for patients not responding to the initial treatment, this pragmatic trial also compares the outcomes of those switching or augmenting treatments.

METHOD

Patients screening positive for PTSD (n = 700) were recruited from the primary care clinics of 7 Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) and 8 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Centers and randomized in the ratio 1:1:2 to one of three treatment sequences: 1) selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) followed by augmentation with Written Exposure Therapy (WET), 2) SSRI followed by a switch to serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), or 3) WET followed by a switch to SSRI. Participants complete surveys at baseline, 4 months, and 8 months. The primary outcome is PTSD symptom severity as measured by the PTSD Checklist (PCL-5).

RESULTS

Average PCL-5 scores (M = 52.8, SD = 11.1) indicated considerable severity. The most common bothersome traumatic event for VA enrollees was combat (47.8%), and for FQHC enrollees was other (28.2%), followed by sexual assault (23.4%), and child abuse (19.8%). Only 22.4% were taking an antidepressant at baseline.

CONCLUSION

Results will help healthcare systems and clinicians make decisions about which treatments to offer to patients.

Primary Care Models and Depression Outcomes in Rural Adult Populations: A Systematic Review

Rural populations rely on primary care services for depression care due to shortages and maldistributions of specialty mental health care favoring urban areas. Yet, it is unknown which primary care models are effective at reducing depressive symptoms and emergency department (ED) use for depression among rural populations. The purpose of this systematic review is to synthesize the effectiveness of primary care models on depressive symptoms and ED utilization for depression in rural populations. PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and reference lists of included studies were searched. Eligible articles focused on the impact of primary care models on depressive symptoms or ED utilization for depression among rural populations in the United States. Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria. Three care models were identified in the studies, including collaborative care (i.e., team-based integrated care that tracks patient populations with a registry; n = 7), tele-psychotherapy (i.e., identification of patients in primary care and referral to virtual psychotherapy; n = 6), or self-management support (i.e., identification of patients in primary care and referral to community support for depression self-management; n = 4). These care models were associated with improved patient-reported depressive symptoms such as Patient-Health Questionnaire reported remission of depression (score < 5). No studies assessed depression ED utilization as an outcome. Collaborative care, tele-psychotherapy, and self-management support may be effective at reducing depressive symptoms, specifically in rural populations and should be implemented at the practice level. Research focused on primary care models and ED utilization for depression among rural populations is needed.

Telemedicine Implementation for Safety Net Populations: A Systematic Review

Background: Telemedicine systems were rapidly implemented in response to COVID-19. However, little is known about their effectiveness, acceptability, and sustainability for safety net populations. This study systematically reviewed primary care telemedicine implementation and effectiveness in safety net settings. Methods: We searched PubMed for peer-reviewed articles on telemedicine implementation from 2013 to 2021. The search was done between June and December 2021. Included articles focused on health care organizations that primarily serve low-income and/or rural populations in the United States. We screened 244 articles from an initial search of 343 articles and extracted and analyzed data from N = 45 articles. Results: Nine (20%) of 45 articles were randomized controlled trials. N = 22 reported findings for at least one marginalized group (i.e., racial/ethnic minority, 65 years+, limited English proficiency). Only n = 19 (42%) included African American/Black patients in demographics descriptions, n = 14 (31%) LatinX/Hispanic patients, n = 4 (9%) Asian patients, n = 4 (9%) patients aged 65+ years, and n = 4 (9%) patients with limited English proficiency. Results show telemedicine can provide high-quality primary care that is more accessible and affordable. Fifteen studies assessed barriers and facilitators to telemedicine implementation. Common barriers were billing/administrative workflow disruption (n = 9, 20%), broadband access/quality (n = 5, 11%), and patient preference for in-person care (n = 4, 9%). Facilitators included efficiency gains (n = 6, 13%), patient acceptance (n = 3, 7%), and enhanced access (n = 3, 7%). Conclusions: Telemedicine is an acceptable care modality to deliver primary care in safety net settings. Future studies should compare telemedicine and in-person care quality and test strategies to improve telemedicine implementation in safety net settings.

Conjoint Analysis of Telemedicine Preferences for Hypertension Management Among Adult Patients

Background: Telemedicine has been differentially utilized by different demographic groups during COVID-19, exacerbating inequities in health care. We conducted conjoint and latent class analyses to understand factors that shape patient preferences for hypertension management telemedicine appointments. Methods: We surveyed 320 adults, oversampling participants from households that earned <$50K per year (77.2%) and speak a language other than English at home (68.8%). We asked them to choose among 2 hypothetical appointments through 12 conjoint tasks measuring 6 attributes. Individual utilities for attributes were constructed using logit estimation, and latent classes were identified and compared by demographic and clinical characteristics. Results: Respondents preferred in-person visits (0.353, standard error [SE] = 0.039) and video appointments conducted through a secure patient portal (0.002, SE = 0.040). Respondents also preferred seeing a clinician with whom they have an established relationship (0.168, SE = 0.021). We found four latent classes: "in-person" (26.5% of participants) who strongly weighted in-person appointments, "cost conscious" (8.1%) who prioritized the lowest copay ($0 to $10), "expedited" (19.7%) who prioritized getting the earliest appointment possible (same/next day or at least within the next week), and "comprehensive" (45.6%) who had preferences for in-person care and telemedicine appointments through a secure portal, low copayments, and the ability to see a familiar clinician. Conclusions: Appointment preferences for hypertension management can be segmented into four groups that prioritize (1) in-person care, (2) low copayments, (3) expedited care, and (4) balanced preferences for in-person and telemedicine appointments. Evidence is needed to clarify whether aligning appointment offerings with patients' preferences can improve care quality, equity, and efficiency.

A Comparison of Patient-Reported Mental Health Outcomes for the Department of Veterans Affairs' Regional Telehealth and Community Care Programs

Objectives

To compare patient‐reported outcomes for veterans with limited access to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) mental health services referred to the Veterans Community Care Program (VCCP) or regional telehealth Clinical Resource Hubs‐Mental Health (CRH‐MH).

Data Sources

This national evaluation used secondary data from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse, chart review, and primary data collected by baseline survey between October 8, 2019 and May 27, 2020 and a 4‐month follow‐up survey.

Study Design

A quasi‐experimental longitudinal study design was used to sample 545 veterans with VCCP or CRH‐MH referrals for new treatment episodes. Patient‐reported outcomes included symptom severity, perceived access, utilization, and patient‐centeredness.

Data Collection

During the baseline and follow‐up surveys, all veterans were administered the Patient Health Questionnaire‐8 (PHQ‐8) to assess depression severity, and veterans with a provisional diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) were also administered the PTSD Checklist for DSM‐5 (PCL‐5) to assess PTSD symptom severity. The 4‐month follow‐up survey also asked about perceived access using the Perceived Access Inventory, the number of encounters, and patient‐centeredness of care using the Patient‐Centered Care portion of the Veterans Satisfaction Survey.

Principal Findings

Results indicated that compared to VCCP consults, veterans with CRH‐MH consults reported 0.65 (CI₉₅ = 0.51–0.83, p < 0.01) times the number of barriers to care, but a non‐significant lower number of encounters (−0.792, CI₉₅ −2.221, 0.636, p = 0.28). There was no significant (p = 0.24) difference in satisfaction with patient‐centeredness, with both groups “agreeing” on average to positively worded questions. Veterans in both groups experienced little improvement in depression or PTSD symptom severity, and there were no clinically meaningful differences between groups.

Conclusions

Overall findings indicate that the CRH‐MH and VCCP generate similar patient‐reported outcomes. Future research should compare the quality and cost of care delivered by the VCCP and CRH‐MH programs.

The Role of the Patient-Centered Medical Home in Treating Depression

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review discusses the role of the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) in treating depression, focusing on findings from primary care-based studies and their implications for the PCMH.

RECENT FINDINGS

Pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy, and collaborative care are evidence-based treatments for depression that can be delivered in primary care and extended to diverse populations. Recent research aligns with the core components of the PCMH model. The core components of the PCMH are critical elements of depression treatment. Comprehensive care within the PCMH addresses medical and behavioral health concerns, including depression. Psychiatric and psychological care must be flexibly delivered so services remain accessible yet patient-centered. To ensure the quality and safety of treatment, depression symptoms must be consistently monitored. Coordination within and occasionally outside of the PCMH is needed to ensure patients receive the appropriate level of care. More research is needed to empirically evaluate depression treatment within the PCMH.

Randomized Controlled Trial of a Collaborative Care Intervention for Mood Disorders by a National Commercial Health Plan

OBJECTIVE

Few individuals with mood disorders have access to evidence-based collaborative chronic care models (CCMs) because most patients are seen in small-group practices (<20 providers) with limited capacity to deliver CCMs. In this single-blind randomized controlled trial, we determined whether a CCM delivered nationally in a U.S. health plan improved 12-month outcomes among enrollees with mood disorders compared with usual care.

METHODS

Aetna insurance enrollees (N=238), mostly females (66.1%) with a mean age of 41.1 years, who were recently hospitalized for unipolar major depression or bipolar disorder provided informed consent, completed baseline assessments, and were randomly assigned to usual care or CCM. The CCM included 10 sessions of the Life Goals self-management program and brief contacts by phone by a care manager to determine symptom status. Primary outcomes were changes over 12 months in depression symptoms (nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9]) and mental health-related quality of life (Short Form-12).

RESULTS

Adjusted mean PHQ-9 scores were lower by 2.34 points (95% confidence level [CL]=-4.18 to -0.50, p=0.01), indicating improved symptoms, and adjusted mean SF-12 mental health scores were higher by 3.21 points (CL=-.97 to 7.38, p=0.10), indicating better quality of life, among participants receiving CCM versus usual care.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals receiving CCM compared with usual care had improved clinical outcomes, although substantial attrition may limit the impact of health plan-level delivery of CCMs. Further research on the use of health plan-level interventions, such as CCMs, as alternatives to practice-based models is warranted.