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

Efficacy of life goals collaborative care for bipolar disorder: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Bipolar disorder remains a disabling mental health condition despite the availability of effective treatments. Collaborative chronic care models (CCMs) represent an evidence-based way to structure care for conditions like bipolar disorder. Life Goals Collaborative Care (LGCC) was designed specifically for bipolar disorder, featuring psychoeducation alongside collaborative components (e.g. nurse care management or expert psychiatric consultation). Despite the use of Life Goals across health systems, a systematic review summarizing its effectiveness has never been conducted.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of LGCC through December 2023 to help guide the field in treating bipolar disorder (PROSPERO: #404581). We evaluated study quality and outcomes in several symptom and quality of life domains.

RESULTS

Ten articles describing eight studies met inclusion criteria. All studies featured group-based LGCC; most were compared to treatment as usual (TAU). Three of eight studies found LGCC to be associated with statistically significant effects for the prevention of manic episodes. Most studies finding positive effects featured additional collaborative care components beyond psychoeducation and were conducted in capitated healthcare systems.

LIMITATIONS

Limitations include: several types of potential bias in included studies; exclusion of observational studies of LGCC; lack of generalizability to pediatric populations; insufficient studies to conduct subgroup analyses; and low confidence in the quality of the evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review, group-based LGCC demonstrated some positive effects for reducing mania recurrence; results for other outcome domains were equivocal. Future studies should investigate one-on-one LGCC, both in person and virtually, to enhance well-being for people with bipolar disorder.

Intensity, Characteristics, and Factors Associated With Receipt of Care Coordination Among High-Risk Veterans in the Veterans Health Administration

BACKGROUND

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has initiatives underway to enhance the provision of care coordination (CC), particularly among high-risk Veterans. Yet, evidence detailing the characteristics of and who receives VHA CC is limited.

OBJECTIVES

We examined intensity, timing, setting, and factors associated with VHA CC among high-risk Veterans.

RESEARCH DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study, following Veterans for 1 year after being identified as high-risk for hospitalization or mortality, to characterize their CC. Demographic and clinical factors predictive of CC were identified via multivariate logistic regression.

SUBJECTS

A total of 1,843,272 VHA-enrolled high-risk Veterans in fiscal years 2019-2021.

MEASURES

We measured 5 CC variables during the year after Veterans were identified as high risk: (1) receipt of any service, (2) number of services received, (3) number of days to first service, (4) number of days between services, and (5) type of visit during which services were received.

RESULTS

Overall, 31% of high-risk Veterans in the sample received CC during one-year follow-up. Among Veterans who received ≥1 service, a median of 2 [IQR (1, 6)] services were received. Among Veterans who received ≥2 services, there was a median of 26 [IQR (10, 57)] days between services. Most services were received during outpatient psychiatry (46%) or medicine (16%) visits. Veterans' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were associated with receipt of CC.

CONCLUSIONS

A minority of Veterans received CC in the year after being identified as high-risk, and there was variation in intensity, timing, and setting of CC. Research is needed to examine the fit between Veterans' CC needs and preferences and VHA CC delivery.

Collaborative mental health care: A narrative review

The Collaborative Care model is a systematic strategy for treating behavioral health conditions in primary care through the integration of care managers and psychiatric consultants. Several randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that Collaborative Care increases access to mental health care and is more effective and cost efficient than the current standard of care for treating common mental illnesses. Large healthcare systems and organizations have begun to adopt Collaborative Care initiatives and are seeing improved treatment outcomes and provider and patient satisfaction. This review discusses current research on the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of Collaborative Care. In addition, this paper discusses its ability to adapt to specific patient populations, such as geriatrics, students, substance use, and women with perinatal depression, as well as the significance of measurement-based care and mental health screening in achieving improved clinical outcomes. Current data suggests that Collaborative Care may significantly improve patient outcomes and time-to-treatment in all reviewed settings, and successfully adapts to special patient populations. Despite the high upfront implementation burden of launching a Collaborative Care model program, these costs are generally offset by long term healthcare savings.

Effect of mental health collaborative care models on primary care provider outcomes: an integrative review

BACKGROUND

Collaborative care models (CCMs) have robust research evidence in improving mental health outcomes for diverse patient populations with complex health care needs. However, the impact of CCMs on primary care provider (PCP) outcomes are not well described.

OBJECTIVE

This integrative review synthesizes the evidence regarding the effect of mental health CCMs on PCP outcomes.

METHODS

PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsycInfo were systematically searched using key terms, with inclusion criteria of English language, peer-reviewed literature, primary care setting, PCP outcomes, and mental health CCM. This resulted in 1,481 total records, with an additional 14 records identified by review of reference lists. After removal of duplicates, 1,319 articles were reviewed based on title and abstract, 190 full-text articles were assessed, and a final selection of 15 articles were critically appraised and synthesized.

RESULTS

The articles included a wide variety of sample sizes, designs, settings, and patient populations, with most studies demonstrating low or moderate quality evidence. Although CCMs had an overwhelmingly positive overall effect on PCP outcomes such as knowledge, satisfaction, and self-efficacy, multiple logistical barriers were also identified that hindered CCM implementation such as time and workflow conflicts. Adaptability of the CCM as well as PCP enthusiasm enhanced positive outcomes. Newer-to-practice PCPs were more likely to participate in CCM initiatives.

CONCLUSION

Accumulating evidence supports CCM expansion, to improve both patient and PCP outcomes. Logistical efforts may enhance CCM adaptability and workflow. Further studies are needed to specifically examine the effect of CCMs on PCP burnout and retention.

Smartphone-based interventions in bipolar disorder: Systematic review and meta-analyses of efficacy. A position paper from the International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) Big Data Task Force

BACKGROUND

The clinical effects of smartphone-based interventions for bipolar disorder (BD) have yet to be established.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the efficacy of smartphone-based interventions in BD and how the included studies reported user-engagement indicators.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search on January 24, 2022, in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, APA PsycINFO, and Web of Science. We used random-effects meta-analysis to calculate the standardized difference (Hedges' g) in pre-post change scores between smartphone intervention and control conditions. The study was pre-registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021226668).

RESULTS

The literature search identified 6034 studies. Thirteen articles fulfilled the selection criteria. We included seven RCTs and performed meta-analyses comparing the pre-post change in depressive and (hypo)manic symptom severity, functioning, quality of life, and perceived stress between smartphone interventions and control conditions. There was significant heterogeneity among studies and no meta-analysis reached statistical significance. Results were also inconclusive regarding affective relapses and psychiatric readmissions. All studies reported positive user-engagement indicators.

CONCLUSION

We did not find evidence to support that smartphone interventions may reduce the severity of depressive or manic symptoms in BD. The high heterogeneity of studies supports the need for expert consensus to establish ideally how studies should be designed and the use of more sensitive outcomes, such as affective relapses and psychiatric hospitalizations, as well as the quantification of mood instability. The ISBD Big Data Task Force provides preliminary recommendations to reduce the heterogeneity and achieve more valid evidence in the field.

Remote care management for older adult populations with elevated prevalence of depression or anxiety and comorbid chronic medical illness: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Comorbidity of psychiatric and medical illnesses among older adult populations is highly prevalent and associated with adverse outcomes. Care management is a common form of outpatient support for both psychiatric and medical conditions in which assessment, care planning, and care coordination are provided. Although care management is often remote and delivered by telephone, the evidence supporting this model of care is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of the literature on remote care management programs for older adult populations with elevated prevalence of depression or anxiety and comorbid chronic medical illness.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A multi-database search was performed. Articles were included for review if they studied fully remote care management for older adult populations with elevated prevalence of depression or anxiety and chronic medical illness or poor physical health. A narrative synthesis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 6 articles representing 6 unique studies met inclusion criteria. The 6 studies included 4 randomized controlled trials, 1 case-matched retrospective cohort study, and 1 pre-post analysis. Two studies focused on specific medical conditions. All interventions were entirely telephonic. Five of 6 studies involved an intervention that was 3 to 6 months in duration. Across the 6 studies, care management demonstrated mixed results in terms of impact on psychiatric outcomes and limited impact on medical outcomes. No studies demonstrated a statistically significant impact on health care utilization or cost.

CONCLUSION

Among older adult populations with elevated prevalence of depression or anxiety and comorbid chronic medical illness, remote care management may have favorable impact on psychiatric symptoms, but impact on physical health and health care utilization is uncertain. Future research should focus on identifying effective models and elements of remote care management for this population, with a particular focus on optimizing medical outcomes.

Effects of smartphone-based interventions and monitoring on bipolar disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recently, there has been a range of studies about smartphone-based interventions and monitoring for reducing symptoms of bipolar disorder (BD). However, their efficacy for BD remains unclear.

AIM

To compare the effect of smartphone-based interventions and monitoring with control methods in treating patients with BD.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed on PubMed, Embase, Clinical trials, psycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or single-group trials in which smartphone-based interventions and monitoring were compared with control methods or baseline in patients with symptoms of BD were included. Data were synthesized using a random-effects or a fixed-effects model to analyze the effects of psychological interventions and monitoring delivered via smartphone on psychiatric symptoms in patients with BD. The primary outcome measures were set for mania and depression symptoms. Subgroups were created to explore which aspects of smartphone interventions are relevant to the greater or lesser efficacy of treating symptoms.

RESULTS

We identified ten articles, including seven RCTs (985 participants) and three single-group trials (169 participants). Analysis of the between-group study showed that smartphone-based interventions were effective in reducing manic [g = -0.19, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.33 to -0.04, P = 0.01] and depressive (g = -0.28, 95%CI: -0.55 to -0.01, P < 0.05) symptoms. In within-group analysis, smartphone-based interventions significantly reduced manic (g = 0.17, 95%CI: 0.04 to 0.30, P < 0.01) and depressive (g = 0.48, 95%CI: 0.18 to 0.78) symptoms compared to the baseline. Nevertheless, smartphone-based monitoring systems significantly reduced manic (g = 0.27, 95%CI: 0.02 to 0.51, P < 0.05) but not depressive symptoms. Subgroup analysis indicated that the interventions with psychoeducation had positive effects on depressive (g = -0.62, 95%CI: -0.81 to -0.43, P < 0.01) and manic (g = -0.24, 95%CI: -0.43 to -0.06, P = 0.01) symptoms compared to the controlled conditions, while the interventions without psychoeducation did not (P > 0.05). The contacts between therapists and patients that contributed to the implementation of psychological therapy reduced depression symptoms (g = -0.47, 95%CI: -0.75 to -0.18, P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Smartphone-based interventions and monitoring have a significant positive impact on depressive and manic symptoms of BD patients in between-group and within-group analysis.

Bipolarity in a Collaborative Care Model Variation: Detection, Prevalence, and Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To assess the prevalence of bipolarity and its impact on clinical course, psychiatric consultants' diagnostic impressions and respective treatment outcomes were examined for patients with depression who were treated in a collaborative care model (CoCM) of psychiatric consultation.

METHODS

Electronic records for 1,476 patients were reviewed for the presence of a mood disorder, which yielded 641 patients with complete data on several measures: the Composite International Diagnostic Interview, version 3.0 (CIDI); a questionnaire eliciting data on non-mania-related markers of bipolar disorder (family history, age of onset, course of illness, response to treatment); consultants' diagnostic impressions; and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores before and after consultation.

RESULTS

Of referred patients, 97% were screened for bipolar disorder. A smooth distribution of scores on the CIDI was observed. Patients were divided into four groups on the basis of their CIDI scores (≥7, positive, or <7, negative) and on the consultant's recorded Impression (positive or negative for bipolarity). Of the study sample, 21% were CIDI positive (≥7), and 35% were Impression positive (sufficient bipolarity to guide treatment recommendations). All groups demonstrated equivalent decreases in PHQ-9 scores in the 6 months since consultation, including the potentially overdiagnosed group (CIDI negative, impression positive), which comprised 22% of the study sample.

CONCLUSIONS

Universal screening for bipolarity in primary care is feasible in CoCM programs. Interpreting the data dimensionally is logical on the basis of the smooth distribution of CIDI scores. Such screening will yield high rates of bipolar disorder, much higher than previously reported. Offering treatment recommendations based on an impression of bipolarity to patients with negative CIDI results (<7) was not associated with outcomes worse than experienced by all other consultation patients. Multiple explanations of the latter finding are possible, warranting additional study.

Comparative effectiveness of external vs blended facilitation on collaborative care model implementation in slow-implementer community practices

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of external facilitation (EF) vs external + internal facilitation (EF/IF), on uptake of a collaborative chronic care model (CCM) in community practices that were slower to implement under low-level implementation support.

STUDY SETTING

Primary data were collected from 43 community practices in Michigan and Colorado at baseline and for 12 months following randomization.

STUDY DESIGN

Sites that failed to meet a pre-established implementation benchmark after six months of low-level implementation support were randomized to add either EF or EF/IF support for up to 12 months. Key outcomes were change in number of patients receiving the CCM and number of patients receiving a clinically significant dose of the CCM. Moderators' analyses further examined whether comparative effectiveness was dependent on prerandomization adoption, number of providers trained or practice size. Facilitation log data were used for exploratory follow-up analyses.

DATA COLLECTION

Sites reported monthly on number of patients that had received the CCM. Facilitation logs were completed by study EF and site IFs and shared with the study team.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

N = 21 sites were randomized to EF and 22 to EF/IF. Overall, EF/IF practices saw more uptake than EF sites after 12 months (Δ_EF/IF-EF  = 4.4 patients, 95% CI = 1.87-6.87). Moderators' analyses, however, revealed that it was only sites with no prerandomization uptake of the CCM (nonadopter sites) that saw significantly more benefit from EF/IF (Δ_EF/IF-EF  = 9.2 patients, 95% CI: 5.72, 12.63). For sites with prerandomization uptake (adopter sites), EF/IF offered no additional benefit (Δ_EF/IF-EF  = -0.9; 95% CI: -4.40, 2.60). Number of providers trained and practice size were not significant moderators.

CONCLUSIONS

Although stepping up to the more intensive EF/IF did outperform EF overall, its benefit was limited to sites that failed to deliver any CCM under the low-level strategy. Once one or more providers were delivering the CCM, additional on-site personnel did not appear to add value to the implementation effort.

A prospective longitudinal study searching for predictors of response to group psychoeducation in bipolar disorder

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of adjunctive group psychoeducation in bipolar disorder has been proven although treatment response differ among individuals. The aim of this study was to characterize responders and non-responders to group psychoeducation in order to identify baseline variables that could predict treatment response.

METHODS

The sample was composed of 103 medicated euthymic patients with bipolar disorder referred to 21 sessions of group psychoeducation (6 months). Sociodemographic and clinical variables, temperament, circadian rhythms, BDNF, cognitive and psychosocial functioning were collected. At the 18-month endpoint, the patients were split in two groups on the basis of having suffered any recurrence. Significant group differences were included in a logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Ninety patients out of 103 engaged in group psychoeducation, 47 of whom (52.2%) responded to psychoeducation and 43 (47.8%) did not. Recurrences occurred more often in the follow-up, the most common being depression. Responders and non-responders differed in gender, age at diagnosis, latency of diagnosis, temperament, attention composite score and BDNF. Lower age at diagnosis of bipolar disorder, lower cyclothimic temperament scores and being male -which was associated with bipolar type I and a trend to more previous manic episodes- were significantly related to a better response to psychoeducation in the regression analysis.

LIMITATIONS

No control group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identifies age at diagnosis as a significant modifiable risk factor of treatment response, highlighting the need for early identification of bipolar disorder. Existing programs should be adjusted to the characteristics of specific subpopulations in the framework of a personalized approach.

Prevention and early intervention in youth mental health: is it time for a multidisciplinary and trans-diagnostic model for care?

BACKGROUND

Similar to other health care sectors, mental health has moved towards the secondary prevention, with the effort to detect and treat mental disorders as early as possible. However, converging evidence sheds new light on the potential of primary preventive and promotion strategies for mental health of young people. We aimed to reappraise such evidence.

METHODS

We reviewed the current state of knowledge on delivering promotion and preventive interventions addressing youth mental health.

RESULTS

Half of all mental disorders start by 14 years and are usually preceded by non-specific psychosocial disturbances potentially evolving in any major mental disorder and accounting for 45% of the global burden of disease across the 0-25 age span. While some action has been taken to promote the implementation of services dedicated to young people, mental health needs during this critical period are still largely unmet. This urges redesigning preventive strategies in a youth-focused multidisciplinary and trans-diagnostic framework which might early modify possible psychopathological trajectories.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that it would be unrealistic to consider promotion and prevention in mental health responsibility of mental health professionals alone. Integrated and multidisciplinary services are needed to increase the range of possible interventions and limit the risk of poor long-term outcome, with also potential benefits in terms of healthcare system costs. However, mental health professionals have the scientific, ethical, and moral responsibility to indicate the direction to all social, political, and other health care bodies involved in the process of meeting mental health needs during youth years.

Change in Patient Outcomes After Augmenting a Low-level Implementation Strategy in Community Practices That Are Slow to Adopt a Collaborative Chronic Care Model: A Cluster Randomized Implementation Trial

BACKGROUND

Implementation strategies are essential for promoting the uptake of evidence-based practices and for patients to receive optimal care. Yet strategies differ substantially in their intensity and feasibility. Lower-intensity strategies (eg, training and technical support) are commonly used but may be insufficient for all clinics. Limited research has examined the comparative effectiveness of augmentations to low-level implementation strategies for nonresponding clinics.

OBJECTIVES

To compare 2 augmentation strategies for improving uptake of an evidence-based collaborative chronic care model (CCM) on 18-month outcomes for patients with depression at community-based clinics nonresponsive to lower-level implementation support.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Providers initially received support using a low-level implementation strategy, Replicating Effective Programs (REP). After 6 months, nonresponsive clinics were randomized to add either external facilitation (REP+EF) or external and internal facilitation (REP+EF/IF).

MEASURES

The primary outcome was patient 12-item short form survey (SF-12) mental health score at month 18. Secondary outcomes were patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9) depression score at month 18 and receipt of the CCM during months 6 through 18.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven clinics were nonresponsive after 6 months of REP. Thirteen clinics (N=77 patients) were randomized to REP+EF and 14 (N=92) to REP+EF/IF. At 18 months, patients in the REP+EF/IF arm had worse SF-12 [diff, 8.38; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.59-13.18] and PHQ-9 scores (diff, 1.82; 95% CI, -0.14 to 3.79), and lower odds of CCM receipt (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.30-1.49) than REP+EF patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients at sites receiving the more intensive REP+EF/IF saw less improvement in mood symptoms at 18 months than those receiving REP+EF and were no more likely to receive the CCM. For community-based clinics, EF augmentation may be more feasible than EF/IF for implementing CCMs.