Collaborative Interventions for Circulation and Depression (COINCIDE): study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial of collaborative care for depression in people with diabetes and/or coronary heart disease

Community-based integrated care for patients with diabetes and depression (CIC-PDD): study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Managing the multimorbidity of diabetes and depression remains a clinical challenge for patients and healthcare professionals due to the fragmented healthcare delivery system. To effectively cope with multimorbidity, there is an urgent need for the health system to transform into people-centered integrated care (PCIC) system globally. Therefore, this paper describes the protocol of community-based integrated care for patients with diabetes and depression (CIC-PDD) project, an integrated and shared-care intervention project.

METHODS/DESIGN

CIC-PDD project is conducted in two phases, namely "care model development" and "implementation and evaluation." In the first phase, CIC-PDD model was designed and developed based on the four criteria of collaborative care model (CCM) and was subsequently adjusted to align with the context of China. The second phase entails a pragmatic, two-arm, cluster randomized controlled implementation trial, accompanied by parallel mixed-methods process evaluation and cost-effectiveness analysis.

DISCUSSION

We anticipate CIC-PDD project will facilitate the development and innovation of PCIC model and related theories worldwide, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). In addition, CIC-PDD project will contribute to the exploration of primary health care (PHC) in addressing the multimorbidity of physical and mental health issues.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov registration ChiCTR2200065608 (China Clinical Trials Registry https://www.chictr.org.cn ). Registered on November 9, 2022.

Psychological and pharmacological interventions for depression in patients with coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

Depression occurs frequently in individuals with coronary artery disease (CAD) and is associated with a poor prognosis.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of psychological and pharmacological interventions for depression in CAD patients with comorbid depression.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases up to August 2020. We also searched three clinical trials registers in September 2021. We examined reference lists of included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and contacted primary authors. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs investigating psychological and pharmacological interventions for depression in adults with CAD and comorbid depression. Our primary outcomes included depression, mortality, and cardiac events. Secondary outcomes were healthcare costs and utilisation, health-related quality of life, cardiovascular vital signs, biomarkers of platelet activation, electrocardiogram wave parameters, non-cardiac adverse events, and pharmacological side effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently examined the identified papers for inclusion and extracted data from the included studies. We performed random-effects model meta-analyses to compute overall estimates of treatment outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-seven trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Psychological interventions may result in a reduction in end-of-treatment depression symptoms compared to controls (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.92 to -0.19, I² = 88%; low certainty evidence; 10 trials; n = 1226). No effect was evident on medium-term depression symptoms one to six months after the end of treatment (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.01, I² = 69%; 7 trials; n = 2654). The evidence for long-term depression symptoms and depression response was sparse for this comparison. There is low certainty evidence that psychological interventions may result in little to no difference in end-of-treatment depression remission (odds ratio (OR) 2.02, 95% CI 0.78 to 5.19, I² = 87%; low certainty evidence; 3 trials; n = 862). Based on one to two trials per outcome, no beneficial effects on mortality and cardiac events of psychological interventions versus control were consistently found. The evidence was very uncertain for end-of-treatment effects on all-cause mortality, and data were not reported for end-of-treatment cardiovascular mortality and occurrence of myocardial infarction for this comparison. In the trials examining a head-to-head comparison of varying psychological interventions or clinical management, the evidence regarding the effect on end-of-treatment depression symptoms is very uncertain for: cognitive behavioural therapy compared to supportive stress management; behaviour therapy compared to person-centred therapy; cognitive behavioural therapy and well-being therapy compared to clinical management. There is low certainty evidence from one trial that cognitive behavioural therapy may result in little to no difference in end-of-treatment depression remission compared to supportive stress management (OR 1.81, 95% CI 0.73 to 4.50; low certainty evidence; n = 83). Based on one to two trials per outcome, no beneficial effects on depression remission, depression response, mortality rates, and cardiac events were consistently found in head-to-head comparisons between psychological interventions or clinical management. The review suggests that pharmacological intervention may have a large effect on end-of-treatment depression symptoms (SMD -0.83, 95% CI -1.33 to -0.32, I² = 90%; low certainty evidence; 8 trials; n = 750). Pharmacological interventions probably result in a moderate to large increase in depression remission (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.89, I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence; 4 trials; n = 646). We found an effect favouring pharmacological intervention versus placebo on depression response at the end of treatment, though strength of evidence was not rated (OR 2.73, 95% CI 1.65 to 4.54, I² = 62%; 5 trials; n = 891). Based on one to four trials per outcome, no beneficial effects regarding mortality and cardiac events were consistently found for pharmacological versus placebo trials, and the evidence was very uncertain for end-of-treatment effects on all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction. In the trials examining a head-to-head comparison of varying pharmacological agents, the evidence was very uncertain for end-of-treatment effects on depression symptoms. The evidence regarding the effects of different pharmacological agents on depression symptoms at end of treatment is very uncertain for: simvastatin versus atorvastatin; paroxetine versus fluoxetine; and escitalopram versus Bu Xin Qi. No trials were eligible for the comparison of a psychological intervention with a pharmacological intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In individuals with CAD and depression, there is low certainty evidence that psychological intervention may result in a reduction in depression symptoms at the end of treatment. There was also low certainty evidence that pharmacological interventions may result in a large reduction of depression symptoms at the end of treatment. Moderate certainty evidence suggests that pharmacological intervention probably results in a moderate to large increase in depression remission at the end of treatment. Evidence on maintenance effects and the durability of these short-term findings is still missing. The evidence for our primary and secondary outcomes, apart from depression symptoms at end of treatment, is still sparse due to the low number of trials per outcome and the heterogeneity of examined populations and interventions. As psychological and pharmacological interventions can seemingly have a large to only a small or no effect on depression, there is a need for research focusing on extracting those approaches able to substantially improve depression in individuals with CAD and depression.

Integrated Community Collaborative Care for Seniors with Depression/Anxiety and any Physical Illness

Background

We report on the feasibility and effectiveness of an integrated community collaborative care model in improving the health of seniors with depression/anxiety symptoms and chronic physical illness.

Methods

This community collaborative care model integrates geriatric medicine and geriatric psychiatry with care managers (CM) providing holistic initial and follow-up assessments, who use standardized rating scales to monitor treatment and provide psychotherapy (ENGAGE). The CM presents cases in a structured case review to a geriatrician and geriatric psychiatrist. Recommendations are communicated by the CM to the patient’s primary care provider.

Results

187 patients were evaluated. The average age was 80 years old. Two-thirds were experiencing moderate-to-severe depression upon entry and this proportion decreased significantly to one-third at completion. Qualitative interviews with patients, family caregivers, team members, and referring physicians indicated that the program was well-received. Patients had on average six visits with the CM without the need to have a face-to-face meeting with a specialist.

Conclusion

The evaluation shows that the program is feasible and effective as it was well received by patients and patient outcomes improved. Implementation in fee-for-service publicly funded health-care environments may be limited by the need for dedicated funding.

Communication skills training for physicians improves health literacy and medical outcomes among patients with hypertension: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Improving the training of physicians about communication skills and patient health literacy (HL) is a major priority that remains an open question. We aimed to examine the effectiveness of communication skills training for physicians on the hypertension outcomes and the health literacy skills, self-efficacy and medication adherence in patients with uncontrolled blood pressure (BP).

Methods

A randomized, controlled trial method was conducted on 240 hypertensive patients and 35 physicians presenting to healthcare clinics in the Mashhad, Iran, from 2013 to 2014. Using stratified blocking with block sizes of 4 and 6, eligible patients with uncontrolled blood pressure were randomly allocated to the intervention and control groups. Physicians in the intervention group received educational training over 3 sessions of Focus –Group Discussion and 2 workshops. The control group received the routine care. The primary outcome was a reduction in systolic and diastolic BP from baseline to 6 months. The secondary outcome was promoting HL skills in hypertensive patients. Data were analyzed using the regression model and bivariate tests.

Results

After the physician communication training, there was a significant improvement in physicians-patient communication skills, hypertension outcomes, medication adherence, and self-efficacy among the patients being managed by the physicians receiving training, compared to the control group.

Conclusion

The educational intervention leads to better BP control; it may have been sufficient training of physicians change to impact counseling, HL and self-efficacy and adherence. The quality of physician-patient communication is an important modifiable element of medical communication that may influences health outcomes in hypertensive Iranian patients.

Trial registration

Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT), IRCT20160710028863N24. Registered April 4, 2018 [retrospectively registered].

Enactments and experiences of 'enhanced interprofessional communication' in collaborative care - a qualitative study

One of the key components in collaborative care (CC) for anxiety and depression between general practitioners (GPs) and psychiatry is 'enhanced interprofessional communication'. However, the literature contains few detailed descriptions of the interprofessional roles and specific collaborative behaviours that are required to enhance communication. Using semi-structured interviews and observations, this study explores how interprofessional communication was enacted in a CC intervention in Denmark. Analysis was by Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis and interaction analysis. In the intervention the components of the enhanced communication were a) weekly meetings between care managers (CMs) and GPs and b) group supervision of GPs by a psychiatrist. This study showed that the meetings between CMs and GPs were enacted very differently across clinics, with communication ranging from monological 'giving report'-style to more dialogical 'peer-discussion'-style with development of new shared knowledge. The type of communication depended on the GP's professional style. The supervision element was not perceived as being meaningful and GPs reacted by non-attendance and non-response. Engagement of the GPs in a shared process requires a more dialogical model. However, the choice depends on whether a referral or a collaborative model is aimed at. A dialogical model would demand the teaching and guidance of the professionals.

Long-term clinical and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care (versus usual care) for people with mental-physical multimorbidity: cluster-randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Collaborative care can support the treatment of depression in people with long-term conditions, but long-term benefits and costs are unknown.AimsTo explore the long-term (24-month) effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care in people with mental-physical multimorbidity.

METHOD

A cluster randomised trial compared collaborative care (integrated physical and mental healthcare) with usual care for depression alongside diabetes and/or coronary heart disease. Depression symptoms were measured by the symptom checklist-depression scale (SCL-D13). The economic evaluation was from the perspective of the English National Health Service.

RESULTS

191 participants were allocated to collaborative care and 196 to usual care. At 24 months, the mean SCL-D13 score was 0.27 (95% CI, -0.48 to -0.06) lower in the collaborative care group alongside a gain of 0.14 (95% CI, 0.06-0.21) quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The cost per QALY gained was £13 069.

CONCLUSIONS

In the long term, collaborative care reduces depression and is potentially cost-effective at internationally accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds.Declaration of interestNone.

A (five-)level playing field for mental health conditions?: exploratory analysis of EQ-5D-5L-derived utility values

PURPOSE

Economic evaluations of mental health interventions often measure health benefit in terms of utility values derived from the EQ-5D. For the five-level version of the EQ-5D, there are two methods of estimating utility [crosswalk and stated preference (5L-SP)]. This paper explores potential impacts for researchers and decision-makers when comparing utility values derived from either method in the specific context of mental health.

METHODS

Baseline EQ-5D-5L data from three large randomised controlled trials of interventions for mental health conditions were analysed. Utility values were generated using each method. Mean utility values were compared using a series of t tests on pooled data and subgroups. Scenario analyses explored potential impacts on cost-effectiveness decisions.

RESULTS

EQ-5D data were available for 1399 participants. The mean utility value for each trial was approximately 0.08 higher when estimated using the 5L-SP approach compared to crosswalk (p < 0.0001). The difference was greatest among people reporting extreme anxiety/depression (mean utility 5L-SP 0.309, crosswalk 0.084; difference = 0.225; p < 0.0001). Identical improvements in health status were associated with higher costs to gain one QALY with the 5L-SP approach; this is more pronounced when improvements are across all domains compared to improvements on the anxiety/depression domain only.

CONCLUSIONS

The two approaches produce significantly different utility values in people with mental health conditions. Resulting differences in cost per QALY estimates suggest that thresholds of cost-effectiveness may also need to be reviewed. Researchers and decision-makers should exercise caution when comparing or synthesising data from trials of mental health interventions using different utility estimation approaches.

Psychological interventions for coronary heart disease

BACKGROUND

Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the most common cause of death globally, although mortality rates are falling. Psychological symptoms are prevalent for people with CHD, and many psychological treatments are offered following cardiac events or procedures with the aim of improving health and outcomes. This is an update of a Cochrane systematic review previously published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of psychological interventions (alone or with cardiac rehabilitation) compared with usual care (including cardiac rehabilitation where available) for people with CHD on total mortality and cardiac mortality; cardiac morbidity; and participant-reported psychological outcomes of levels of depression, anxiety, and stress; and to explore potential study-level predictors of the effectiveness of psychological interventions in this population.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the previous Cochrane Review searches by searching the following databases on 27 April 2016: CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), and CINAHL (EBSCO).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological interventions compared to usual care, administered by trained staff, and delivered to adults with a specific diagnosis of CHD. We selected only studies estimating the independent effect of the psychological component, and with a minimum follow-up of six months. The study population comprised of adults after: a myocardial infarction (MI), a revascularisation procedure (coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)), and adults with angina or angiographically defined coronary artery disease (CAD). RCTs had to report at least one of the following outcomes: mortality (total- or cardiac-related); cardiac morbidity (MI, revascularisation procedures); or participant-reported levels of depression, anxiety, or stress.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts of all references for eligibility. A lead review author extracted study data, which a second review author checked. We contacted study authors to obtain missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included 35 studies which randomised 10,703 people with CHD (14 trials and 2577 participants added to this update). The population included mainly men (median 77.0%) and people post-MI (mean 65.7%) or after undergoing a revascularisation procedure (mean 27.4%). The mean age of participants within trials ranged from 53 to 67 years. Overall trial reporting was poor, with around a half omitting descriptions of randomisation sequence generation, allocation concealment procedures, or the blinding of outcome assessments. The length of follow-up ranged from six months to 10.7 years (median 12 months). Most studies (23/35) evaluated multifactorial interventions, which included therapies with multiple therapeutic components. Ten studies examined psychological interventions targeted at people with a confirmed psychopathology at baseline and two trials recruited people with a psychopathology or another selecting criterion (or both). Of the remaining 23 trials, nine studies recruited unselected participants from cardiac populations reporting some level of psychopathology (3.8% to 53% with depressive symptoms, 32% to 53% with anxiety), 10 studies did not report these characteristics, and only three studies excluded people with psychopathology.Moderate quality evidence showed no risk reduction for total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.05; participants = 7776; studies = 23) or revascularisation procedures (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.11) with psychological therapies compared to usual care. Low quality evidence found no risk reduction for non-fatal MI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.05), although there was a 21% reduction in cardiac mortality (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.98). There was also low or very low quality evidence that psychological interventions improved participant-reported levels of depressive symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.27, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.15; GRADE = low), anxiety (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.09; GRADE = low), and stress (SMD -0.56, 95% CI -0.88 to -0.24; GRADE = very low).There was substantial statistical heterogeneity for all psychological outcomes but not clinical outcomes, and there was evidence of small-study bias for one clinical outcome (cardiac mortality: Egger test P = 0.04) and one psychological outcome (anxiety: Egger test P = 0.012). Meta-regression exploring a limited number of intervention characteristics found no significant predictors of intervention effects for total mortality and cardiac mortality. For depression, psychological interventions combined with adjunct pharmacology (where deemed appropriate) for an underlying psychological disorder appeared to be more effective than interventions that did not (β = -0.51, P = 0.003). For anxiety, interventions recruiting participants with an underlying psychological disorder appeared more effective than those delivered to unselected populations (β = -0.28, P = 0.03).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated Cochrane Review found that for people with CHD, there was no evidence that psychological treatments had an effect on total mortality, the risk of revascularisation procedures, or on the rate of non-fatal MI, although the rate of cardiac mortality was reduced and psychological symptoms (depression, anxiety, or stress) were alleviated; however, the GRADE assessments suggest considerable uncertainty surrounding these effects. Considerable uncertainty also remains regarding the people who would benefit most from treatment (i.e. people with or without psychological disorders at baseline) and the specific components of successful interventions. Future large-scale trials testing the effectiveness of psychological therapies are required due to the uncertainty within the evidence. Future trials would benefit from testing the impact of specific (rather than multifactorial) psychological interventions for participants with CHD, and testing the targeting of interventions on different populations (i.e. people with CHD, with or without psychopathologies).

Better guidelines for better care: accounting for multimorbidity in clinical guidelines – structured examination of exemplar guidelines and health economic modelling

Background

Multimorbidity is common but most clinical guidelines focus on single diseases.

Aim

To test the feasibility of new approaches to developing single-disease guidelines to better account for multimorbidity.

Design

Literature-based and economic modelling project focused on areas where multimorbidity makes guideline application problematic.

Methods

(1) Examination of accounting for multimorbidity in three exemplar National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines (type 2 diabetes, depression, heart failure); (2) examination of the applicability of evidence in multimorbidity for the exemplar conditions; (3) exploration of methods for comparing absolute benefit of treatment; (4) incorporation of treatment pay-off time and competing risk of death in an exemplar economic model for long-term preventative treatments with slowly accruing benefit; and (5) development of a discrete event simulation model-based cost-effectiveness analysis for people with both depression and coronary heart disease.

Results

(1) Comorbidity was rarely accounted for in the clinical research questions that framed the development of the exemplar guidelines, and was rarely accounted for in treatment recommendations. Drug–disease interactions were common only for comorbid chronic kidney disease, but potentially serious drug–drug interactions between recommended drugs were common and rarely accounted for in guidelines. (2) For all three conditions, the trials underpinning treatment recommendations largely excluded older, more comorbid and more coprescribed patients. The implications of low applicability varied by condition, with type 2 diabetes having large differences in comorbidity, whereas potentially serious drug–drug interactions were more important for depression. (3) Comparing absolute benefit of treatments for different conditions was shown to be technically feasible, but only if guideline developers are willing to make a number of significant assumptions. (4) The lifetime absolute benefit of statins for primary prevention is highly sensitive to the presence of both the direct treatment disutility of taking a daily tablet and competing risk of death. (5) It was feasible to use a discrete event simulation-based model to represent the relevant care pathways to estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of pharmacological treatments of major depressive disorder in primary care for patients who are also likely to go on and receive treatment for coronary heart disease but the analysis was reliant on eliciting some parameter values from experts, which increases the inherent uncertainty in the results. The key limitation was that real-life use in guideline development was not examined.

Conclusions

Guideline developers could feasibly (1) use epidemiological data characterising the guideline population to inform consideration of applicability and interactions; (2) systematically compare the absolute benefit of long-term preventative treatments to inform decision-making in people with multimorbidity and high treatment burden; and (3) modify the output from economic models used in guideline development to examine time to benefit in terms of the pay-off time and varying competing risk of death from other conditions.

Future work

Further research is needed to optimise presentation of comparative absolute benefit information to clinicians and patients, to evaluate the use of epidemiological and time-to-benefit data in guideline development, to better quantify direct treatment disutility and to better quantify benefit and harm in people with multimorbidity.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Long-term cost-effectiveness of collaborative care (vs usual care) for people with depression and comorbid diabetes or cardiovascular disease: a Markov model informed by the COINCIDE randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of collaborative care (vs usual care) for treating depression in patients with diabetes and/or coronary heart disease (CHD).

SETTING

36 primary care general practices in North West England.

PARTICIPANTS

387 participants completed baseline assessment (collaborative care: 191; usual care: 196) and full or partial 4-month follow-up data were captured for 350 (collaborative care: 170; usual care: 180). 62% of participants were male, 14% were non-white. Participants were aged ≥18 years, listed on a Quality and Outcomes Framework register for CHD and/or type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus, with persistent depressive symptoms. Patients with psychosis or type I/II bipolar disorder, actively suicidal, in receipt of services for substance misuse, or already in receipt of psychological therapy for depression were excluded.

INTERVENTION

Collaborative care consisted of evidence-based low-intensity psychological treatments, delivered over 3 months and case management by a practice nurse and a Psychological Well Being Practitioner.

OUTCOME MEASURES

As planned, the primary measure of cost-effectiveness was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY)). A Markov model was constructed to extrapolate the trial results from short-term to long-term (24 months).

RESULTS

The mean cost per participant of collaborative care was £317 (95% CI 284 to 350). Over 24 months, it was estimated that collaborative care was associated with greater healthcare usage costs (net cost £674 (95% CI -30 953 to 38 853)) and QALYs (net QALY gain 0.04 (95% CI -0.46 to 0.54)) than usual care, resulting in a cost per QALY gained of £16 123, and a likelihood of being cost-effective of 0.54 (willingness to pay threshold of £20 000).

CONCLUSIONS

Collaborative care is a potentially cost-effective long-term treatment for depression in patients with comorbid physical and mental illness. The estimated cost per QALY gained was below the threshold recommended by English decision-makers. Further, long-term primary research is needed to address uncertainty associated with estimates of cost-effectiveness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN80309252; Post-results.

Comorbid depression is differentially associated with longitudinal medication nonadherence by race/ethnicity in patients with type 2 diabetes

The aim of the study was to examine whether depression impacts medication nonadherence (MNA) over time and determine if race has a differential impact on MNA in patients with type 2 diabetes and comorbid depression.Generalized estimating equations were used with a longitudinal national cohort of 740,197 veterans with type 2 diabetes. MNA was the main outcome defined by <80% medication possession ratio for diabetes medications. The primary independent variable was comorbid depression. Analyses were adjusted for the longitudinal nature of the data and covariates including age, sex, marital status, and rural/urban residence.In adjusted models, MNA was higher in non-Hispanic blacks (NHBs) (odds ratio [OR] 1.58 [95% confidence interval-CI: 1.57, 1.59]), Hispanics (OR 1.34 [95% CI: 1.32, 1.35]), and the other/missing racial/ethnic group (OR 1.37 [95% CI: 1.36, 1.38]) than in non-Hispanic whites (NHWs). In stratified analyses, the odds of MNA associated with depression were highest in NHWs (OR 1.14 [95% CI: 1.12, 1.15]) and were significantly associated in the other 3 minority racial/ethnic groups. MNA was lower in rural than urban NHWs (OR 0.91 [95% CI: 0.90, 0.92]), NHBs (OR 0.92 [95% CI: 0.91, 0.94]), and the other/unknown racial/ethnic group (OR 0.89 [95% CI: 0.88, 0.90]), but higher in rural Hispanic patients (OR 1.12 [95% CI: 1.09, 1.14]).Depression was associated with increased odds of MNA in NHWs, as well as in minority groups, although associations were weaker in minority groups, perhaps as a result of the high baseline levels of MNA in minority groups. There were also differences by race/ethnicity in MNA in rural versus urban subjects.

Personalised care planning for adults with chronic or long-term health conditions

BACKGROUND

Personalised care planning is a collaborative process used in chronic condition management in which patients and clinicians identify and discuss problems caused by or related to the patient's condition, and develop a plan for tackling these. In essence it is a conversation, or series of conversations, in which they jointly agree goals and actions for managing the patient's condition.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of personalised care planning for adults with long-term health conditions compared to usual care (i.e. forms of care in which active involvement of patients in treatment and management decisions is not explicitly attempted or achieved).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ProQuest, clinicaltrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to July 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials and cluster-randomised trials involving adults with long-term conditions where the intervention included collaborative (between individual patients and clinicians) goal setting and action planning. We excluded studies where there was little or no opportunity for the patient to have meaningful influence on goal selection, choice of treatment or support package, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two of three review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes were effects on physical health, psychological health, subjective health status, and capabilities for self management. Secondary outcomes included effects on health-related behaviours, resource use and costs, and type of intervention. A patient advisory group of people with experience of living with long-term conditions advised on various aspects of the review, including the protocol, selection of outcome measures and emerging findings.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 studies involving a total of 10,856 participants. Twelve of these studies focused on diabetes, three on mental health, one on heart failure, one on end-stage renal disease, one on asthma, and one on various chronic conditions. All 19 studies included components that were intended to support behaviour change among patients, involving either face-to-face or telephone support. All but three of the personalised care planning interventions took place in primary care or community settings; the remaining three were located in hospital clinics. There was some concern about risk of bias for each of the included studies in respect of one or more criteria, usually due to inadequate or unclear descriptions of research methods. Physical healthNine studies measured glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), giving a combined mean difference (MD) between intervention and control of -0.24% (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.35 to -0.14), a small positive effect in favour of personalised care planning compared to usual care (moderate quality evidence).Six studies measured systolic blood pressure, a combined mean difference of -2.64 mm/Hg (95% CI -4.47 to -0.82) favouring personalised care (moderate quality evidence). The pooled results from four studies showed no significant effect on diastolic blood pressure, MD -0.71 mm/Hg (95% CI -2.26 to 0.84).We found no evidence of an effect on cholesterol (LDL-C), standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.01 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.11) (five studies) or body mass index, MD -0.11 (95% CI -0.35 to 0.13) (four studies).A single study of people with asthma reported that personalised care planning led to improvements in lung function and asthma control. Psychological healthSix studies measured depression. We were able to pool results from five of these, giving an SMD of -0.36 (95% CI -0.52 to -0.20), a small effect in favour of personalised care (moderate quality evidence). The remaining study found greater improvement in the control group than the intervention group.Four other studies used a variety of psychological measures that were conceptually different so could not be pooled. Of these, three found greater improvement for the personalised care group than the usual care group and one was too small to detect differences in outcomes. Subjective health statusTen studies used various patient-reported measures of health status (or health-related quality of life), including both generic health status measures and condition-specific ones. We were able to pool data from three studies that used the SF-36 or SF-12, but found no effect on the physical component summary score SMD 0.16 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.38) or the mental component summary score SMD 0.07 (95% CI -0.15 to 0.28) (moderate quality evidence). Of the three other studies that measured generic health status, two found improvements related to personalised care and one did not.Four studies measured condition-specific health status. The combined results showed no difference between the intervention and control groups, SMD -0.01 (95% CI -0.11 to 0.10) (moderate quality evidence). Self-management capabilitiesNine studies looked at the effect of personalised care on self-management capabilities using a variety of outcome measures, but they focused primarily on self efficacy. We were able to pool results from five studies that measured self efficacy, giving a small positive result in favour of personalised care planning: SMD 0.25 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.43) (moderate quality evidence).A further five studies measured other attributes that contribute to self-management capabilities. The results from these were mixed: two studies found evidence of an effect on patient activation, one found an effect on empowerment, and one found improvements in perceived interpersonal support. Other outcomesPooled data from five studies on exercise levels showed no effect due to personalised care planning, but there was a positive effect on people's self-reported ability to carry out self-care activities: SMD 0.35 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.52).We found no evidence of adverse effects due to personalised care planning.The effects of personalised care planning were greater when more stages of the care planning cycle were completed, when contacts between patients and health professionals were more frequent, and when the patient's usual clinician was involved in the process.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Personalised care planning leads to improvements in certain indicators of physical and psychological health status, and people's capability to self-manage their condition when compared to usual care. The effects are not large, but they appear greater when the intervention is more comprehensive, more intensive, and better integrated into routine care.

Integrated primary care for patients with mental and physical multimorbidity: cluster randomised controlled trial of collaborative care for patients with depression comorbid with diabetes or cardiovascular disease

OBJECTIVE

To test the effectiveness of an integrated collaborative care model for people with depression and long term physical conditions.

DESIGN

Cluster randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

36 general practices in the north west of England.

PARTICIPANTS

387 patients with a record of diabetes or heart disease, or both, who had depressive symptoms (≥ 10 on patient health questionaire-9 (PHQ-9)) for at least two weeks. Mean age was 58.5 (SD 11.7). Participants reported a mean of 6.2 (SD 3.0) long term conditions other than diabetes or heart disease; 240 (62%) were men; 360 (90%) completed the trial.

INTERVENTIONS

Collaborative care included patient preference for behavioural activation, cognitive restructuring, graded exposure, and/or lifestyle advice, management of drug treatment, and prevention of relapse. Up to eight sessions of psychological treatment were delivered by specially trained psychological wellbeing practitioners employed by Improving Access to Psychological Therapy services in the English National Health Service; integration of care was enhanced by two treatment sessions delivered jointly with the practice nurse. Usual care was standard clinical practice provided by general practitioners and practice nurses.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was reduction in symptoms of depression on the self reported symptom checklist-13 depression scale (SCL-D13) at four months after baseline assessment. Secondary outcomes included anxiety symptoms (generalised anxiety disorder 7), self management (health education impact questionnaire), disability (Sheehan disability scale), and global quality of life (WHOQOL-BREF).

RESULTS

19 general practices were randomised to collaborative care and 20 to usual care; three practices withdrew from the trial before patients were recruited. 191 patients were recruited from practices allocated to collaborative care, and 196 from practices allocated to usual care. After adjustment for baseline depression score, mean depressive scores were 0.23 SCL-D13 points lower (95% confidence interval -0.41 to -0.05) in the collaborative care arm, equal to an adjusted standardised effect size of 0.30. Patients in the intervention arm also reported being better self managers, rated their care as more patient centred, and were more satisfied with their care. There were no significant differences between groups in quality of life, disease specific quality of life, self efficacy, disability, and social support.

CONCLUSIONS

Collaborative care that incorporates brief low intensity psychological therapy delivered in partnership with practice nurses in primary care can reduce depression and improve self management of chronic disease in people with mental and physical multimorbidity. The size of the treatment effects were modest and were less than the prespecified effect but were achieved in a trial run in routine settings with a deprived population with high levels of mental and physical multimorbidity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN80309252.

Development of a multimorbidity illness perceptions scale (MULTIPleS)

BACKGROUND

Illness perceptions are beliefs about the cause, nature and management of illness, which enable patients to make sense of their conditions. These perceptions can predict adjustment and quality of life in patients with single conditions. However, multimorbidity (i.e. patients with multiple long-term conditions) is increasingly prevalent and a key challenge for future health care delivery. The objective of this research was to develop a valid and reliable measure of illness perceptions for multimorbid patients.

METHODS

Candidate items were derived from previous qualitative research with multimorbid patients. Questionnaires were posted to 1500 patients with two or more exemplar long-term conditions (depression, diabetes, osteoarthritis, coronary heart disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). Data were analysed using factor analysis and Rasch analysis. Rasch analysis is a modern psychometric technique for deriving unidimensional and intervally-scaled questionnaires.

RESULTS

Questionnaires from 490 eligible patients (32.6% response) were returned. Exploratory factor analysis revealed five potential subscales 'Emotional representations', 'Treatment burden', 'Prioritising conditions', 'Causal links' and 'Activity limitations'. Rasch analysis led to further item reduction and the generation of a summary scale comprising of items from all scales. All scales were unidimensional and free from differential item functioning or local independence of items. All scales were reliable, but for each subscale there were a number of patients who scored at the floor of the scale.

CONCLUSIONS

The MULTIPleS measure consists of five individual subscales and a 22-item summary scale that measures the perceived impact of multimorbidity. All scales showed good fit to the Rasch model and preliminary evidence of reliability and validity. A number of patients scored at floor of each subscale, which may reflect variation in the perception of multimorbidity. The MULTIPleS measure will facilitate research into the impact of illness perceptions on adjustment, clinical outcomes, quality of life, and costs in patients with multimorbidity.

Collaborative care for patients with depression and diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Diabetic patients with depression are often inadequately treated within primary care. These comorbid conditions are associated with poor outcomes. The aim of this systematic review was to examine whether collaborative care can improve depression and diabetes outcomes in patients with both depression and diabetes.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, Cochrane library and PsyINFO were systematically searched to identify relevant publications. All randomized controlled trials of collaborative care for diabetic patients with depression of all ages who were reported by depression treatment response, depression remission, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) values, adherence to antidepressant medication and/or oral hypoglycemic agent were included. Two authors independently screened search results and extracted data from eligible studies. Dichotomous and continuous measures of outcomes were combined using risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) either by fixed or random-effects models.

RESULTS

Eight studies containing 2,238 patients met the inclusion criteria. Collaborative care showed a significant improvement in depression treatment response (RR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.05-1.68), depression remission (adjusted RR = 1.53, 95% CI =1.11-2.12), higher rates of adherence to antidepressant medication (RR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.19-2.69) and oral hypoglycemic agent (RR = 2.18, 95% CI = 1.61-2.96), but indicated a non-significant reduction in HbA1c values (MD = -0.13, 95% CI = -0.46-0.19).

CONCLUSIONS

Improving depression care in diabetic patients is very necessary and important. Comparing with usual care, collaborative care was associated with significantly better depressive outcomes and adherence in patients with depression and diabetes. These findings emphasize the implications for collaborative care of diabetic patients with depression in the future.

Better together? a naturalistic qualitative study of inter-professional working in collaborative care for co-morbid depression and physical health problems

Background

Mental-physical multi-morbidities pose challenges for primary care services that traditionally focus on single diseases. Collaborative care models encourage inter-professional working to deliver better care for patients with multiple chronic conditions, such as depression and long-term physical health problems. Successive trials from the United States have shown that collaborative care effectively improves depression outcomes, even in people with long-term conditions (LTCs), but little is known about how to implement collaborative care in the United Kingdom. The aim of the study was to explore the extent to which collaborative care was implemented in a naturalistic National Health Service setting.

Methods

A naturalistic pilot study of collaborative care was undertaken in North West England. Primary care mental health professionals from IAPT (Increasing Access to Psychological Therapies) services and general practice nurses were trained to collaboratively identify and manage patients with co-morbid depression and long-term conditions. Qualitative interviews were performed with health professionals at the beginning and end of the pilot phase. Normalization Process Theory guided analysis.

Results

Health professionals adopted limited elements of the collaborative care model in practice. Although benefits of co-location in primary care practices were reported, including reduced stigma of accessing mental health treatment and greater ease of disposal for identified patients, existing norms around the division of mental and physical health work in primary care were maintained, limiting integration of the mental health practitioners into the practice setting. Neither the mental health practitioners nor the practice nurses perceived benefits to joint management of patients.

Conclusions

Established divisions between mental and physical health may pose particular challenges for multi-morbidity service delivery models such as collaborative care. Future work should explore patient perspectives about whether greater inter-professional working enhances experiences of care. The study demonstrates that research into implementation of novel treatments must consider how the introduction of innovation can be balanced with the need for integration into existing practice.

Update on the collaborative interventions for circulation and depression (COINCIDE) trial: changes to planned methodology of a cluster randomized controlled trial of collaborative care for depression in people with diabetes and/or coronary heart disease

Background

The COINCIDE trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a collaborative care intervention for depression in people with diabetes and/or coronary heart disease attending English general practices.

Design

This update details changes to the cluster and patient recruitment strategy for the COINCIDE study. The original protocol was published in Trials (http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/pdf/1745-6215-13-139.pdf). Modifications were made to the recruitment targets in response to lower-than-expected patient recruitment at the first ten general practices recruited into the study. In order to boost patient numbers and retain statistical power, the number of general practices recruited was increased from 30 to 36. Follow-up period was shortened from 6 months to 4 months to ensure that patients recruited to the trial could be followed up by the end of the study.

Results

Patient recruitment began on the 01/05/2012 and is planned to be completed by the 30/04/2013. Recruitment for general practices was completed on 31/10/2012, by which time the target of 36 practices had been recruited. The main trial results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Conclusion

The data from the trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for depression in people with diabetes and/or coronary heart disease.

Trial registration

Trial registration number: ISRCTN80309252

Patients' perceptions of depression and coronary heart disease: a qualitative UPBEAT-UK study

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of depression in people with coronary heart disease (CHD) is high but little is known about patients' own perceptions and experiences of this. This study aimed to explore (i) primary care (PC) patients' perceptions of links between their physical condition and mental health, (ii) their experiences of living with depression and CHD and (iii) their own self-help strategies and attitudes to current PC interventions for depression.

METHOD

Qualitative study using consecutive sampling, in-depth interviews and thematic analysis using a process of constant comparison. 30 participants from the UPBEAT-UK cohort study, with CHD and symptoms of depression. All participants were registered on the General Practitioner (GP) primary care, coronary register.

RESULTS

A personal and social story of loss underpinned participants' accounts of their lives, both before and after their experience of having CHD. This theme included two interrelated domains: interpersonal loss and loss centred upon health/control issues. Strong links were made between CHD and depression by men who felt emasculated by CHD. Weaker links were made by participants who had experienced distressing life events such as divorce and bereavement or were living with additional chronic health conditions (i.e. multimorbidity). Participants also felt 'depressed' by the 'medicalisation' of their lives, loneliness and the experience of ageing and ill health. Just under half the sample had consulted their GP about their low mood and participants were somewhat ambivalent about accessing primary care interventions for depression believing the GP would not be able to help them with complex health and social issues. Talking therapies and interventions providing the opportunity for social interaction, support and exercise, such as Cardiac Rehabilitation, were thought to be helpful whereas anti-depressants were not favoured.

CONCLUSIONS

The experiences and needs of patients with CHD and depression are diverse and include psycho-social issues involving interpersonal and health/control losses. In view of the varying social and health needs of patients with CHD and depression the adoption of a holistic, case management approach to care is recommended together with personalised support providing the opportunity for patients to develop and achieve life and health goals, where appropriate.