Graduate mental health worker case management of depression in UK primary care: a pilot study

Clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of individual mental health workers colocated within primary care practices: a systematic literature review

OBJECTIVES

Mental health disorders contribute significantly to the global burden of disease and lead to extensive strain on health systems. The integration of mental health workers into primary care has been proposed as one possible solution, but evidence of clinical and cost effectiveness of this approach is unclear. We reviewed the clinical and cost effectiveness of mental health workers colocated within primary care practices.

DESIGN

Systematic literature review.

DATA SOURCES

We searched the Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Healthcare Management Information Consortium (HMIC) and Global Health databases.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

All quantitative studies published before July 2019 were eligible for the review; participants of any age and gender were included. Studies did not need to report a certain outcome measure or comparator in order to be eligible.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted using a standardised table; however, pooled analysis proved unfeasible. Studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool and the Cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies from four countries were included. Mental health worker integration was associated with mental health benefits to varied populations, including minority groups and those with comorbid chronic diseases. Furthermore, the interventions were correlated with high patient satisfaction and increases in specialist mental health referrals among minority populations. However, there was insufficient evidence to suggest clinical outcomes were significantly different from usual general practitioner care.

CONCLUSIONS

While there appear to be some benefits associated with mental health worker integration in primary care practices, we found insufficient evidence to conclude that an onsite primary care mental health worker is significantly more clinically or cost effective when compared with usual general practitioner care. There should therefore be an increased emphasis on generating new evidence from clinical trials to better understand the benefits and effectiveness of mental health workers colocated within primary care practices.

Collaborative care for depression and anxiety disorders: results and lessons learned from the Danish cluster-randomized Collabri trials

BACKGROUND

Meta-analyses suggest that collaborative care (CC) improves symptoms of depression and anxiety. In CC, a care manager collaborates with a general practitioner (GP) to provide evidence-based care. Most CC research is from the US, focusing on depression. As research results may not transfer to other settings, we developed and tested a Danish CC-model (the Collabri-model) for depression, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and social anxiety disorder in general practice.

METHODS

Four cluster-randomized superiority trials evaluated the effects of CC. The overall aim was to explore if CC significantly improved depression and anxiety symptoms compared to treatment-as-usual at 6-months' follow-up. The Collabri-model was founded on a multi-professional collaboration between a team of mental-health specialists (psychiatrists and care managers) and GPs. In collaboration with GPs, care managers provided treatment according to a structured plan, including regular reassessments and follow-up. Treatment modalities (cognitive behavioral therapy, psychoeducation, and medication) were offered based on stepped care algorithms. Face-to-face meetings between GPs and care managers took place regularly, and a psychiatrist provided supervision. The control group received treatment-as-usual. Primary outcomes were symptoms of depression (BDI-II) and anxiety (BAI) at 6-months' follow-up. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated based on 6-months' follow-up.

RESULTS

Despite various attempts to improve inclusion rates, the necessary number of participants was not recruited. Seven hundred thirty-one participants were included: 325 in the depression trial and 406 in the anxiety trials. The Collabri-model was implemented, demonstrating good fidelity to core model elements. In favor of CC, we found a statistically significant difference between depression scores at 6-months' follow-up in the depression trial. The difference was not significant at 15-months' follow-up. The anxiety trials were pooled for data analysis due to inadequate sample sizes. At 6- and 15-months' follow-up, there was a difference in anxiety symptoms favoring CC. These differences were not statistically significant. The ICER was 58,280 Euro per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

At 6 months, a significant difference between groups was found in the depression trial, but not in the pooled anxiety trial. However, these results should be cautiously interpreted as there is a risk of selection bias and lacking statistical power.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02678624 and NCT02678845 . Retrospectively registered on 7 February 2016.

The role of relapse prevention for depression in collaborative care: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Relapse (the re-emergence of depression symptoms before full recovery) is common in depression and relapse prevention strategies are not well researched in primary care settings. Collaborative care is effective for treating acute phase depression but little is known about the use of relapse prevention strategies in collaborative care. We undertook a systematic review to identify and characterise relapse prevention strategies in the context of collaborative care.

METHODS

We searched for Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) of collaborative care for depression. In addition to published material, we obtained provider and patient manuals from authors to provide more detail on intervention content. We reported the extent to which collaborative care interventions addressed four relapse prevention components.

RESULTS

93 RCTs were identified. 31 included a formal relapse prevention plan; 42 had proactive monitoring and follow-up after the acute phase; 39 reported strategies for optimising sustained medication adherence; and 20 of the trials reported psychological or psycho-educational treatments persisting beyond the acute phase or focussing on long-term health/relapse prevention. 30 (32.3%) did not report relapse prevention approaches.

LIMITATIONS

We did not receive trial materials for approximately half of the trials, which limited our ability to identify relevant features of intervention content.

CONCLUSION

Relapse is a significant risk amongst people treated for depression and interventions are needed that specifically address and minimise this risk. Given the advantages of collaborative care as a delivery system for depression care, there is scope for more consistency and increased effort to implement and evaluate relapse prevention strategies.

Collaborative care for depression in general practice: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Depression is a common illness with great human costs and a significant burden on the public economy. Previous studies have indicated that collaborative care (CC) has a positive effect on symptoms when provided to people with depression, but CC has not yet been applied in a Danish context. We therefore developed a model for CC (the Collabri model) to treat people with depression in general practice in Denmark. Since systematic identification of patients is an "active ingredient" in CC and some literature suggests case finding as the best alternative to standard detection, the two detection methods are examined as part of the study. The aim is to investigate if treatment according to the Collabri model has an effect on depression symptoms when provided to people with depression in general practice in Denmark, and to examine if case finding is a better method to detect depression in general practice than standard detection.

METHODS/DESIGN

The trial is a cluster-randomised, clinical superiority trial investigating the effect of treatment according to the Collabri model for CC, compared to treatment as usual for 480 participants diagnosed with depression in general practice in the Capital Region of Denmark. The primary outcome is depression symptoms (Beck's Depression Inventory (BDI-II)) after 6 months. Secondary outcomes include depression symptoms (BDI-II) after 15 months, anxiety symptoms (Beck's Anxiety Inventory (BAI)), level of functioning (Global Assessment of Function (GAF)) and psychological stress (Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R)). In addition, case finding (with the recommended screening tool Major Depression Inventory (MDI)) and standard detection of depression is examined in a cluster-randomized controlled design. Here, the primary outcome is the positive predictive value of referral diagnosis.

DISCUSSION

If the Collabri model is shown to be superior to treatment as usual, the study will contribute with important knowledge on how to improve treatment of depression in general practice, with major benefit to patients and society. If case finding is shown to be superior to standard detection, it will be recommended as the detection method in future treatment according to the Collabri model.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT02678845 . Retrospectively registered on 7 February 2016.

Collaborative care regarding major depressed patients: A review of guidelines and current practices

Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is a severe and common mental disorder. A growing body of evidence suggests that stepped and/or collaborative care treatment models have several advantages for severely depressed patients and caretakers. However, despite the availability of these treatment strategies and guidance initiatives, many depressive patients are solely treated by the general practitioner (GP), and collaborative care is not common. In this paper, we review a selected set of international guidelines to inventory the best strategies for GPs and secondary mental health care providers to collaborate when treating depressed patients. Additionally, we systematically searched the literature, listing potential ways of cooperation, and potentially supporting tools. We conclude that the prevailing guidelines only include few and rather vague directions regarding the cooperation between GPs and specialised mental health practitioners. Inspiring recent studies, however, suggest that relatively little efforts may result in effective collaborative care and a broader implementation of the guidelines in general.

Collaborative care for depression in European countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of collaborative care compared to Primary Care Physician's (PCP's) usual care in the treatment of depression, focusing on European countries.

METHODS

A systematic review of English and non-English articles, from inception to March 2014, was performed using database PubMed, British Nursing Index and Archive, Ovid Medline (R), PsychINFO, Books@Ovid, PsycARTICLES Full Text, EMBASE Classic+Embase, DARE (Database of Abstract of Reviews of Effectiveness) and the Cochrane Library electronic database. Search term included depression, collaborative care, physician family and allied health professional. RCTs comparing collaborative care to usual care for depression in primary care were included. Titles and abstracts were independently examined by two reviewers, who extracted from the included trials information on participants' characteristics, type of intervention, features of collaborative care and type of outcome measure.

RESULTS

The 17 papers included, regarding 15 RCTs, involved 3240 participants. Primary analyses showed that collaborative care models were associated with greater improvement in depression outcomes in the short term, within 3 months (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI=-0.33; -0.05; p=0.006), medium term, between 4 and 11 months (SMD -0.24, 95% CI=-0.39; -0.09; p=0.001) and medium-long term, from 12 months and over (SMD -0.21, 95% CI=-0.37; -0.04; p=0.01), compared to usual care.

CONCLUSIONS

The present review, specifically focusing on European countries, shows that collaborative care is more effective than treatment as usual in improving depression outcomes.

Collaborative care for depression and anxiety problems

BACKGROUND

Common mental health problems, such as depression and anxiety, are estimated to affect up to 15% of the UK population at any one time, and health care systems worldwide need to implement interventions to reduce the impact and burden of these conditions. Collaborative care is a complex intervention based on chronic disease management models that may be effective in the management of these common mental health problems.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of collaborative care for patients with depression or anxiety.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases to February 2012: The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group (CCDAN) trials registers (CCDANCTR-References and CCDANCTR-Studies) which include relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from MEDLINE (1950 to present), EMBASE (1974 to present), PsycINFO (1967 to present) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, all years); the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (ICTRP); ClinicalTrials.gov; and CINAHL (to November 2010 only). We screened the reference lists of reports of all included studies and published systematic reviews for reports of additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of collaborative care for participants of all ages with depression or anxiety.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent researchers extracted data using a standardised data extraction sheet. Two independent researchers made 'Risk of bias' assessments using criteria from The Cochrane Collaboration. We combined continuous measures of outcome using standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We combined dichotomous measures using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the results.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seventy-nine RCTs (including 90 relevant comparisons) involving 24,308 participants in the review. Studies varied in terms of risk of bias.The results of primary analyses demonstrated significantly greater improvement in depression outcomes for adults with depression treated with the collaborative care model in the short-term (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.27; RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.43), medium-term (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.15; RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.48), and long-term (SMD -0.35, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.24; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.41). However, these significant benefits were not demonstrated into the very long-term (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27).The results also demonstrated significantly greater improvement in anxiety outcomes for adults with anxiety treated with the collaborative care model in the short-term (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.17; RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.87), medium-term (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.19; RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.69), and long-term (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.06; RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.42). No comparisons examined the effects of the intervention on anxiety outcomes in the very long-term.There was evidence of benefit in secondary outcomes including medication use, mental health quality of life, and patient satisfaction, although there was less evidence of benefit in physical quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Collaborative care is associated with significant improvement in depression and anxiety outcomes compared with usual care, and represents a useful addition to clinical pathways for adult patients with depression and anxiety.

Collaborative care to improve the management of depressive disorders: a community guide systematic review and meta-analysis

CONTEXT

To improve the quality of depression management, collaborative care models have been developed from the Chronic Care Model over the past 20 years. Collaborative care is a multicomponent, healthcare system-level intervention that uses case managers to link primary care providers, patients, and mental health specialists. In addition to case management support, primary care providers receive consultation and decision support from mental health specialists (i.e., psychiatrists and psychologists). This collaboration is designed to (1) improve routine screening and diagnosis of depressive disorders; (2) increase provider use of evidence-based protocols for the proactive management of diagnosed depressive disorders; and (3) improve clinical and community support for active client/patient engagement in treatment goal-setting and self-management.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A team of subject matter experts in mental health, representing various agencies and institutions, conceptualized and conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on collaborative care for improving the management of depressive disorders. This team worked under the guidance of the Community Preventive Services Task Force, a nonfederal, independent, volunteer body of public health and prevention experts. Community Guide systematic review methods were used to identify, evaluate, and analyze available evidence.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

An earlier systematic review with 37 RCTs of collaborative care studies published through 2004 found evidence of effectiveness of these models in improving depression outcomes. An additional 32 studies of collaborative care models conducted between 2004 and 2009 were found for this current review and analyzed. The results from the meta-analyses suggest robust evidence of effectiveness of collaborative care in improving depression symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD]=0.34); adherence to treatment (OR=2.22); response to treatment (OR=1.78); remission of symptoms (OR=1.74); recovery from symptoms (OR=1.75); quality of life/functional status (SMD=0.12); and satisfaction with care (SMD=0.39) for patients diagnosed with depression (all effect estimates were significant).

CONCLUSIONS

Collaborative care models are effective in achieving clinically meaningful improvements in depression outcomes and public health benefits in a wide range of populations, settings, and organizations. Collaborative care interventions provide a supportive network of professionals and peers for patients with depression, especially at the primary care level.

Recommendation from the community preventive services task force for use of collaborative care for the management of depressive disorders

The Community Preventive Services Task Force recommends collaborative care for management of depressive disorders, based on strong evidence of effectiveness in improving depression symptoms, adherence to treatment, response to treatment, and remission and recovery from depression.

Social capital and the course of depression: six-month prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Previous research has found an inverse cross-sectional relationship between an individual's access to social capital (defined as resources embedded within social networks) and depression, but this relationship has not been rigorously tested in prospective research. This is the first longitudinal study to evaluate the effect of social capital on the course of depression and subjective quality of life in a clinical population.

METHODS

This was a six-month prospective cohort study of people with depression in primary care achieving a follow-up rate of 91.3% (n=158). Depression was measured with the HAD-D and social capital using the Resource Generator-UK. Potential confounding variables including socio-demographics, socio-economic status, depression history, social support, life events and attachment style were also measured.

RESULTS

Social capital had no independent effect on the course of depression, though an interaction of access to social capital and attachment style was significantly related to change in quality of life alongside multiple covariates.

LIMITATIONS

The study used a small sample; a short follow-up period; no measure of ecological social capital; no genetic components; and only two time points.

CONCLUSIONS

Emotional support is important for the alleviation of depression. Additionally, people with depression may require a secure attachment style to derive the full benefit of their social capital.

How usual is usual care in pragmatic intervention studies in primary care? An overview of recent trials

BACKGROUND

Because pragmatic trials are performed to determine if an intervention can improve current practice, they often have a control group receiving 'usual care'. The behaviour of caregivers and patients in this control group should be influenced by the actions of researchers as little as possible. Guidelines for describing the composition and management of a usual care control group are lacking.

AIM

To explore the variety of approaches to the usual care concept in pragmatic trials, and evaluate the influence of the study design on the behaviour of caregivers and patients in a usual care control group.

DESIGN OF STUDY

Review of 73 pragmatic trials in primary care with a usual care control group published between January 2005 and December 2009 in the British Medical Journal, the British Journal of General Practice, and Family Practice. Outcome measures were: description of the factors influencing caregiver and patients in a usual care control group related to an individual randomised design versus cluster randomisation.

RESULTS

In total, 38 individually randomised trials and 35 cluster randomised trials were included. In most trials, caregivers had the freedom to treat control patients according to their own insight; in two studies, treatment options were restricted. Although possible influences on the behaviour of control caregivers and control patients were more often identified in individually randomised trials, these influences were also present in cluster randomised trials. The description of instructions and information provided to the control group was often insufficient, which made evaluation of the trials difficult.

CONCLUSION

Researchers in primary care medicine should carefully consider the design of a usual care control group, especially with regard to minimising the risk of study-induced behavioural change. It is recommended that an adequate description of the information is provided to control caregivers and control patients. A proposal is made for an extension to the CONSORT statement that requires authors to specify details of the usual care control group.

Mental health diagnosis by nurses using the Global Mental Health Assessment Tool: a validity and feasibility study

BACKGROUND

The Global Mental Health Assessment Tool-Primary Care Version (GMHAT/PC) has been developed to assist health professionals to make a quick and comprehensive standardised mental health assessment. It has proved to be a reliable and valid tool in a previous study involving GPs. Its use by other health professionals may help in detecting and managing mental disorders in primary care and general health settings.

AIM

To assess the feasibility of using a computer-assisted diagnostic interview by nurses and to examine the level of agreement between the GMHAT/PC diagnosis and psychiatrists' clinical diagnosis.

DESIGN OF STUDY

Cross-sectional validation study.

SETTING

Primary care, general healthcare (cardiac rehabilitation clinic), and community mental healthcare settings.

METHOD

A total of 215 patients between the ages of 16 and 75 years were assessed by nurses and psychiatrists in various settings: primary care centre (n = 54), cardiac rehabilitation centre (n = 98), and community mental health clinic (n = 63). The time taken for the interview, and feedback from patients and interviewers were indicators of feasibility, and the kappa coefficient (kappa), sensitivity, and specificity of the GMHAT/PC diagnosis were measures of validity.

RESULTS

Mean duration of interview was under 15 minutes. The agreement between nurses' GMHAT/PC interview-based diagnosis and psychiatrists' International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 criteria-based clinical diagnosis was 80% (kappa = 0.76, sensitivity = 0.84, specificity = 0.92).

CONCLUSION

The GMHAT/PC can assist nurses to make accurate mental health assessment and diagnosis in various healthcare settings and it is acceptable to patients.