Do employers know the quality of health care benefits they provide? Use of HEDIS depression scores for health plans

OBJECTIVE Dissemination of health quality measures is a necessary ingredient of efforts to harness market-based forces, such as value-based purchasing by employers, to improve health care quality. This study examined reporting of Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measures for depression to firms interested in improving depression care. METHODS During surveys conducted between 2009 and 2011, a sample of 325 employers that were interested in improving depression treatment were asked whether their primary health plan reports HEDIS scores for depression to the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) and if so, whether they knew the scores. Data about HEDIS reporting by the health plans were collected from the NCQA. RESULTS HEDIS depression scores were reported by the primary health plans of 154 (47%) employers, but only 7% of employers knew their plan's HEDIS scores. Because larger employers were more likely to report knowing the scores, 53% of all employees worked for employers who reported knowing the scores. A number of structural, health benefit, and need characteristics predicted knowledge of HEDIS depression scores by employers. CONCLUSIONS The study demonstrated that motivated employers did not know their depression HEDIS scores even when their plan publicly reported them. Measures of health care quality are not reaching the buyers of insurance products; however, larger employers were more likely to know the HEDIS scores for their health plan, suggesting that value-based purchasing may have some ability to affect health care quality.

Potential disparities in the management of schizophrenia in the United States

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated whether outpatient visits to psychiatrists and primary care physicians (family physicians, general internists, or general practitioners) by individuals with schizophrenia differed in antipsychotic medication management and subsequent hospitalization by age, gender, race-ethnicity, insurance, rurality, and region.

METHODS

Data for the study were from office visit forms completed between 1999 and 2007 by physicians in the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. A total of 3,359 outpatient visits by individuals with a diagnosis of schizophrenia were identified. The research team used four logistic regression models to test the relationship of sociodemographic variables to antipsychotic medication management during the visit and to hospitalization after the visit. The four models controlled for available clinical covariates with or without physician specialty in the entire cohort and in the cohort of visits in which patients had no active psychotic symptoms.

RESULTS

In at least three of the four models, the research team observed that visits by non-Hispanic black patients had significantly (p<.05) greater odds of involving antipsychotic medication management than visits by non-Hispanic whites (range of odds ratios [ORs] 1.66 to 1.88) and of resulting in hospitalization (range of ORs, 3.52 to 6.95). In all four models, visits by patients who lacked insurance were significantly less likely to result in hospitalization than visits by patients who had private insurance (OR=<.001 in all models).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide the first national evidence of potential treatment disparities for schizophrenia. Further research is needed to definitively identify disparities and to understand their causes and consequences.

Gender differences in hospitalization after emergency room visits for depressive symptoms

BACKGROUND

Depressed women have greater than three times the odds of hospitalization as clinically comparable men. The objective of this study is to understand if these gender differences emerge in admissions decisions after depressed individuals' arrival at the emergency room (ER).

METHODS

We used multivariate logistic regression to examine gender differences in hospitalization after 6266 ER visits for depressive symptoms in the nationally representative 1998-2007 National Hospital Ambulatory Care Medical Survey.

RESULTS

ER visits by depressed women have only 0.82 the odds of hospitalization (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-0.96, p=0.02) in models adjusted for sociodemographic, clinical, and system covariates. Sensitivity analyses demonstrate gender differences in visits by patients with no injury but not in visits by patients with self-inflicted injury.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that admission decisions after ER visits are not responsible for the increased risk of hospitalization previously reported in depressed women, as ER visits by women with depressive symptoms actually have lower odds of hospitalization than visits by men. We encourage further research to explore the causes and consequences of this practice pattern to move toward rational delivery systems committed to providing comparable treatment to clinically comparable individuals regardless of gender.

Disability from depression: the public health challenge to primary care

Epidemiologists have identified that depression will soon be the leading cause of disability throughout the world. To inform public health campaigns to reduce this problem, this paper summarizes current scientific knowledge about optimizing the potential of primary care settings to reduce disability by providing effective treatment for depression. To meet this challenge, primary care practices need to be re-engineered: 1) to conduct systematic screening programs to identify depressed patients, 2) to provide depressed patients initial evidence-based treatment, and 3) to monitor treatment adherence and symptom response in treated patients over 2 years. While additional research is needed in developing countries, preliminary evidence indicates that primary care practices re-engineered to improve depression management can make a substantial contribution to reducing depression-associated disability.

Clinician burden and depression treatment: disentangling patient- and clinician-level effects of medical comorbidity

BACKGROUND

Efforts to improve primary care depression treatment have assessed strategies across heterogeneous groups of patients, but few have examined clinician-level influences on depression treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To examine clinician characteristics that affect depression treatment in primary care settings, using multilevel ordinal regression modeling to disentangle patient- from clinician-level effects.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis from the Quality Improvement in Depression Study dataset.

PARTICIPANTS

The participants were 1,023 primary care patients with depression who reported on treatment in the 6-month follow-up and whose clinicians (n = 158) had at least 4 patients in the study.

MEASUREMENTS

Primary outcome variable was depression treatment intensity, derived from assessment of concordance with AHCPR depression treatment guidelines based on patient-reported data on their treatment. Primary independent variable was clinical practice burden for treating depression, derived from patient- and clinician-reported composite measures tested for significant association with clinician-reported practice burden.

RESULTS

Clinicians who treat patients with more chronic medical comorbidities perceive less burden from treating depressed patients in their practice (Spearman's rho = -.30, p < .05). Clinicians who treat patients with more chronic medical comorbidities also provide greater intensity of depression treatment (adjusted OR = 1.44, p = .02), even after adjusting for the effects of patient-level chronic medical comorbidities (adjusted OR = 0.95, p = .45).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians who provide more chronic care also provide greater depression treatment intensity, suggesting that clinicians who care for complex patients can integrate depression care into their practice. Targeting interventions to these clinicians to enhance their ability to provide guideline-concordant depression care is a worthwhile endeavor and deserves further investigation.

The effect of adherence to practice guidelines on depression outcomes

BACKGROUND

Few studies have assessed clinician adherence to depression practice guidelines and the relationship between clinician adherence and depression outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate how frequently specific guideline recommendations are followed and to assess whether following guideline recommendations is linked to improved depression outcomes.

DESIGN

Observational analysis of data collected from 1996 to 1998 in 3 randomized clinical trials.

SETTING

45 primary care practices in 13 U.S. states.

PATIENTS

1131 primary care patients with depression.

MEASUREMENTS

Expert panel methods were used to develop a patient survey-based index that measured adherence to clinical practice guidelines on depression. Rates of adherence to the 20 indicators that form the index were evaluated. Multivariable regression that controlled for case mix was used to assess how index scores predicted continuous and dichotomous depression measures at 12, 18, and 24 months.

RESULTS

Quality of care was high (clinician adherence > or =79%) for 6 indicators, including primary care clinician detection of depression. Quality of care was low (adherence, 20% to 38%) for 8 indicators, including management of suicide risk (3 indicators), alcohol abuse (2 indicators), and elderly patients; assessment of symptoms and history of depression; and treatment adjustment for patients who did not respond to initial treatment. Greater adherence to practice guidelines significantly predicted fewer depressive symptoms on continuous measures (P < 0.001 for 12 months, P < 0.01 for 18 months, and P < 0.001 for 24 months) and dichotomous measures (P < 0.05 for 18 and 24 months).

LIMITATIONS

Data are based on patient self-report. Possible changes in practice since 1998 may limit the generalizability of the findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to guidelines was high for one third of the recommendations that were measured but was very low for nearly half of the measures, pointing to specific needs for quality improvement. Guideline-concordant depression care appears to be linked to improved outcomes in primary care patients with depression.

Differential effectiveness of depression disease management for rural and urban primary care patients

CONTEXT

Federally qualified health centers across the country are adopting depression disease management programs following federally mandated training; however, little is known about the relative effectiveness of depression disease management in rural versus urban patient populations.

PURPOSE

To explore whether a depression disease management program has a comparable impact on clinical outcomes over 2 years in patients treated in rural and urban primary care practices and whether the impact is mediated by receiving evidence-based care (antidepressant medication and specialty care counseling).

METHODS

A preplanned secondary analysis was conducted in a consecutively sampled cohort of 479 depressed primary care patients recruited from 12 practices in 10 states across the country participating in the Quality Enhancement for Strategic Teaming study.

FINDINGS

Depression disease management improved the mental health status of urban patients over 18 months but not rural patients. Effects were not mediated by antidepressant medication or specialty care counseling in urban or rural patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Depression disease management appears to improve clinical outcomes in urban but not rural patients. Because these programs compete for scarce resources, health care organizations interested in delivering depression disease management to rural populations need to advocate for programs whose clinical effectiveness has been demonstrated for rural residents.

Rural-urban differences in hospitalization rates of primary care patients with depression

OBJECTIVE

Individuals with depression in rural areas showed greater odds of hospitalization over one year than their urban counterparts in a single-state study; however, differences disappeared in models controlling for recent outpatient specialty care. To investigate whether these results are generalizable to a broader geographic area, the research team analyzed an 11-state database to test whether rural primary care patients with depression had greater odds of hospitalization over two years for physical and emotional problems, compared with their urban counterparts.

METHODS

Hypotheses were tested by conducting a preplanned secondary analysis of data for 1,455 patients with depression in the Quality Improvement for Depression (QID) database. This database was developed in a two-year cooperative trial that evaluated quality initiatives to improve primary care depression treatment. QID studies, including Partners in Care and Quality Enhancement by Strategic Teaming, recruited patients from rural and urban areas.

RESULTS

Multivariate analyses demonstrated that compared with their urban counterparts, rural patients with depression had significantly higher odds of being hospitalized for physical problems (13% versus 7%, OR=1.8, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.2-2.8, p<.01 at six months) and for emotional problems (4% versus 2%, OR=2.3, CI=1.0-5.4, p=.05 at 18 months). Hospitalization differences were not reduced in models controlling for outpatient specialty care in the previous six months.

CONCLUSIONS

Although national studies report that all-cause hospitalization rates are comparable for rural and urban populations, rural patients with depression in this 11-site study had greater odds of hospitalization for both physical and emotional problems over two years, compared with their urban counterparts, suggesting that the potential for reducing hospitalization rates among rural patients with depression should be addressed by depression care management programs serving this population.

Community-level risk factors for depression hospitalizations

This study measured geographic variation in depression hospitalizations and identified community-level risk factors. Depression hospitalizations were identified from the Statewide Inpatient Database. The dependent variable was specified as the indirectly standardized hospitalization rate. County-level data for 14 states were collected from federal agencies. The Bayesian spatial regression model included socio-demographic, economic, and health system characteristics as independent variables. There were 8.5 depression hospitalizations per 1,000 residents. 8.8% of counties had hospitalization rates 33% greater than the standardized rate. Significant risk factors included unemployment, poverty, physician supply, and hospital bed supply. Significant protective factors included rurality, economic dependence, and housing stress.

Modeling the Impact of Enhanced Depression Treatment on Workplace Functioning and Costs

BACKGROUND

The impact of depression on the workplace has been widely observed in studies examining absenteeism and reduced productivity during days at work. However, there is little scientific evidence about whether depression interventions are cost-beneficial to employers.

OBJECTIVE

We construct a cost-benefit analysis of depression treatment under different workplace assumptions better reflecting the nature of employment.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Data from a randomized controlled trial in which employed primary care patients with depression were treated in practices randomly assigned to an enhanced treatment intervention or usual care were used to construct a cost-benefit model from an employer perspective under different assumptions regarding employment.

SUBJECTS

A national sample of 198 workers employed in a range of positions by companies was studied.

MEASURES

Benefits included self-reported productivity and absenteeism; costs included intervention and treatment costs. Net benefit was calculated under different scenarios and return on investment (ROI) is derived.

RESULTS

Enhanced depression treatment resulted in an average net benefit to the employer of Dollars 30 per participating worker in Year 1 of the intervention and Dollars 257 per participating worker in Year 2, for an estimated ROI during the 2-year period of 302%. ROI increased in firms that rely on team production, hire more costly substitute labor, or realize penalties for output shortfalls. ROI decreased in firms that have a large fraction of employees with dependent coverage and experience high turnover rates. Results also are sensitive to how subjectively reported productivity is valued.

CONCLUSION

Many employers will receive a potentially significant ROI from depression treatment models that improve absenteeism and productivity at work.

The relationship of depression treatment quality indicators to employee absenteeism

Although employers commonly review administrative database indicators to assess depression treatment quality, they do not know whether these indicators predict relevant outcomes like absenteeism. In 230 employed patients in five health plans, we tested how administrative database-derived indicators for antidepressant medication and psychotherapy provided during the first 6 months of a new depression treatment episode predicted patient-reported absenteeism change over 12 months. The medication indicator was not significantly associated with absenteeism change over 12 months (p = .64); however, the psychotherapy indicator was significantly associated with an average 26.1% improvement in absenteeism over 12 months (p < .05). If subsequent studies confirm the results we report, quality monitoring initiatives interested in employer-relevant indicators of depression treatment quality should examine administrative database indicators of psychotherapy.

Prevalence of psychiatric disorders and costs of care among adult enrollees in a Medicaid HMO

OBJECTIVE

Little is known about how psychiatric disorders affect health care costs in Medicaid programs. The prevalence of psychiatric disorders and costs of care for members of a Medicaid health maintenance organization (HMO) who had psychiatric disorders were examined.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, observational analysis of adult Medicaid beneficiaries over a 12-month period was conducted by using data from a health plan that has both an HMO and a behavioral health carve-out. Claims data were analyzed for 6,500 adults who were eligible for services in both plans and who received medical or behavioral health services during calendar year 2000.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine percent of the 6,500 adults had a psychiatric diagnosis. Of this subset, 67.2 percent had received no specialty mental health care in the previous year. The presence of any psychiatric diagnosis significantly increased total health care costs by a factor of 2.24 ($6,995 compared with $3,121 for persons with no psychiatric diagnosis) and costs to the medical plan by a factor of 1.77 ($4,690 compared with $2,649). For beneficiaries with bipolar or psychotic diagnoses, higher health plan costs were due predominately to increases in pharmacy and specialty mental health costs. In contrast, higher costs for beneficiaries with depression, anxiety, or substance use diagnoses were attributable to greater use of general medical services.

CONCLUSIONS

An analysis of claims data showed that adult Medicaid beneficiaries have exceptionally high rates of comorbid psychiatric conditions, which were associated with significantly higher medical and pharmaceutical costs. The high cost of these beneficiaries to the medical plan has policy implications in terms of the importance of addressing mental health issues in Medicaid general medical populations.

Clinical Improvement Associated with Conformance to HEDIS-Based Depression Care

BACKGROUND

Employers recently requested a valid metric of depression treatment quality. Such an indicator needs to measure the proportion of the population in need who receive high-quality care, and to predict clinical improvement.

METHODS

We constructed an administrative database indicator derived from HEDIS criteria for antidepressant medication management, and tested it in 230 employed patients in five health plans.

RESULTS

Indicator rates were 7.0% in the population in need. Conformance to indicator criteria in this population was associated with 23.0% improvement in depression severity over 1 year (p = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Administrative database indicators that predict clinical improvement are a very rare accomplishment. Existing depression indicators may need to be calculated for the population in need to provide a valid metric for employer purchasers.

RCT of a care manager intervention for major depression in primary care: 2-year costs for patients with physical vs psychological complaints

PURPOSE

Depression care management for primary care patients results in sustained improvement in clinical outcomes with diminishing costs over time. Clinical benefits, however, are concentrated primarily in patients who report to their primary care clinicians psychological rather than exclusively physical symptoms. This study proposes to determine whether the intervention affects outpatient costs differentially when comparing patients who have psychological with patients who have physical complaints.

METHODS

We undertook a group-randomized controlled trial (RCT) of depression comparing intervention with usual care in 12 primary care practices. Intervention practices encouraged depressed patients to engage in active treatment, using nurses to provide regularly scheduled care management for 24 months. The study sample included 200 adults beginning a new depression treatment episode where patient presentation style could be identified. Outpatient costs were defined as intervention plus outpatient treatment costs for the 2 years. Cost-offset analysis used general linear mixed models, 2-part models, and bootstrapping to test hypotheses regarding a differential intervention effect by patients' style, and to obtain 95% confidence intervals for costs.

RESULTS

Intervention effects on outpatient costs over time differed by patient style (P <.05), resulting in a $980 cost decrease for depressed patients who complain of psychological symptoms and a 1,378 dollars cost increase for depressed patients who complain of physical symptoms only.

CONCLUSIONS

Depression intervention for a 2-year period produced observable clinical benefit with decreased outpatient costs for depressed patients who complain of psychological symptoms. It produced limited clinical benefit with increased costs, however, for depressed patients who complain exclusively of physical symptoms, suggesting the need for developing new intervention approaches for this group.

Cost-effectiveness of enhancing primary care depression management on an ongoing basis

PURPOSE

Although potentially costly, enhancing primary care depression management on an ongoing basis results in substantial long-term treatment effectiveness. The purpose of this article is to compare the cost-effectiveness of this approach with that of usual care.

METHODS

The study was conducted in 12 community primary care practices randomized to enhanced or usual care after stratification by baseline practice patterns. Practices assigned to enhanced care encouraged depressed patients to engage in active treatment, using practice nurses to provide regularly scheduled care management during the course of 24 months. We analyze outcomes for 211 adults (73.4% of potential eligible patients) beginning a new treatment episode for major depression determined by previsit screening. Outcomes included blinded estimates of days free of depression impairment as well as health care costs for 2 years.

RESULTS

Enhanced care significantly increased the number of days free of depression impairment for 2 years when compared with usual care (647.6 days vs 588.2 days, P <.01). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for enhanced care ranged from 9,592 dollars to 14,306 dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The number of incremental days free of depression impairment increased between the first year and the second year (23.0 vs 36.4, respectively, P <.001) while incremental health plan costs decreased significantly (568 dollars vs -12 dollars, P <.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Enhancing primary care depression management on an ongoing basis should be considered for adoption by policy and health plan leaders.

The effect of improving primary care depression management on employee absenteeism and productivity. A randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

To test whether an intervention to improve primary care depression management significantly improves productivity at work and absenteeism over 2 years.

SETTING AND SUBJECTS

Twelve community primary care practices recruiting depressed primary care patients identified in a previsit screening.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Practices were stratified by depression treatment patterns before randomization to enhanced or usual care. After delivering brief training, enhanced care clinicians provided improved depression management over 24 months. The research team evaluated productivity and absenteeism at baseline, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months in 326 patients who reported full-or part-time work at one or more completed waves.

RESULTS

Employed patients in the enhanced care condition reported 6.1% greater productivity and 22.8% less absenteeism over 2 years. Consistent with its impact on depression severity and emotional role functioning, intervention effects were more observable in consistently employed subjects where the intervention improved productivity by 8.2% over 2 years at an estimated annual value of US 1982 dollars per depressed full-time equivalent and reduced absenteeism by 28.4% or 12.3 days over 2 years at an estimated annual value of US 619 dollars per depressed full-time equivalent.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial, which is the first to our knowledge to demonstrate that improving the quality of care for any chronic disease has positive consequences for productivity and absenteeism, encourages formal cost-benefit research to assess the potential return-on-investment employers of stable workforces can realize from using their purchasing power to encourage better depression treatment for their employees.

Re-engineering systems for the treatment of depression in primary care: cluster randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To test the effectiveness of an evidence based model for management of depression in primary care with support from quality improvement resources.

DESIGN

Cluster randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Five healthcare organisations in the United States and 60 affiliated practices.

PATIENTS

405 patients, aged > or = 18 years, starting or changing treatment for depression.

INTERVENTION

Care provided by clinicians, with staff providing telephone support under supervision from a psychiatrist.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Severity of depression at three and six months (Hopkins symptom checklist-20): response to treatment (> or = 50% decrease in scores) and remission (score of < 0.5).

RESULTS

At six months, 60% (106 of 177) of patients in intervention practices had responded to treatment compared with 47% (68 of 146) of patients in usual care practices (P = 0.02). At six months, 37% of intervention patients showed remission compared with 27% for usual care patients (P = 0.014). 90% of intervention patients rated their depression care as good or excellent at six months compared with 75% of usual care patients (P = 0.0003).

CONCLUSION

Resources such as quality improvement programmes can be used effectively in primary care to implement evidence based management of depression and improve outcomes for patients with depression.

Re-engineering systems for the treatment of depression in primary care: cluster randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To test the effectiveness of an evidence based model for management of depression in primary care with support from quality improvement resources.

DESIGN

Cluster randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Five healthcare organisations in the United States and 60 affiliated practices.

PATIENTS

405 patients, aged > or = 18 years, starting or changing treatment for depression.

INTERVENTION

Care provided by clinicians, with staff providing telephone support under supervision from a psychiatrist.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Severity of depression at three and six months (Hopkins symptom checklist-20): response to treatment (> or = 50% decrease in scores) and remission (score of < 0.5).

RESULTS

At six months, 60% (106 of 177) of patients in intervention practices had responded to treatment compared with 47% (68 of 146) of patients in usual care practices (P = 0.02). At six months, 37% of intervention patients showed remission compared with 27% for usual care patients (P = 0.014). 90% of intervention patients rated their depression care as good or excellent at six months compared with 75% of usual care patients (P = 0.0003).

CONCLUSION

Resources such as quality improvement programmes can be used effectively in primary care to implement evidence based management of depression and improve outcomes for patients with depression.

A randomized clinical trial of a care recommendation letter intervention for somatization in primary care

PURPOSE

This paper describes the impact of a care recommendation (CR) letter intervention on patients with multisomatoform disorder (MSD) and analysis of patient factors that affect the response to the intervention.

METHODS

One hundred eighty-eight patients from 3 family practices, identified through screening of 2,902 consecutive patients, were classified using somatization diagnoses based on the number of unexplained physical symptoms from a standardized mental health interview. In a controlled, single-crossover trial, patients were randomized to have their primary care physician receive the CR letter either immediately following enrollment or 12 months after enrollment. The CR letter notified the physician of the patient's somatization status and provided recommendations for the patient's care. Patients were followed for 24 months with assessments of functional status at baseline, 12, and 24 months.

RESULTS

Longitudinal analysis revealed a 12-month intervention effect for patients with multisomatoform disorder (MSD) of 5.5 points (P < .001) on the physical functioning (PCS) scale of the SF-36. Analysis of scores on the MCS scale of the SF-36 found no significant effect on mental functioning. The intervention was more effective for patients with 1 or more comorbid chronic physical diseases (P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

The CR letter has a favorable impact on physical impairment of primary care patients with MSD, especially for patients with comorbid chronic physical disease. Multisomatoform disorder appears to be a useful diagnostic classification for managing and studying somatization in primary care patients.

Depression care attitudes and practices of newer obstetrician-gynecologists: a national survey

OBJECTIVE

The study was undertaken to assess attitudes and behavior of newer obstetricians/gynecologists in depression care.

STUDY DESIGN

One thousand randomly selected physicians in their final year of training or recent practice received a survey about depression: training; related attitudes, responsibility, confidence; and self-reported care for the last depressed patient.

RESULTS

Of those eligible, 437 (64%) returned the survey. Current residents reported more didactic mental health training, but practice patterns were similar to recent graduates. Overall, 94% felt responsible for recognition, whereas about half indicated asking about substance abuse, sexual abuse, or physical abuse, 37% expressed confidence in their ability to treat with medications, and 22% felt confident in their ability to manage depression overall.

CONCLUSION

Residents are receiving more didactic mental health training, yet changes in training are not yet reflected in reported practice patterns or confidence. The use of antidepressant medications and assessment of contributing conditions such as abuse deserve more emphasis in training.

Cost-effectiveness of a primary care intervention for depressed females

BACKGROUND

To date, there is little information about the differential impact of primary care interventions by gender. We conducted an exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis by gender of an intervention to improve recognition and guideline-concordant treatment of depression in primary care.

METHODS

Primary care practices that did not employ an onsite mental healthcare specialist were randomized to enhanced (intervention) versus usual care. All subjects met study criteria for current major depression. Medical Outcomes Study SF-36 scores were converted into quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) to compare the 1-year effectiveness of enhanced versus usual care by gender. Based on results of previous studies, antidepressant acceptors beginning a new depression treatment episode were the focus of the analysis. Statistical analyses included multivariate regression models controlling for sociodemographic and clinical covariates.

RESULTS

In the main analysis, enhanced care for females was more expensive and more effective than usual care, at an additional cost of $5244 per QALY. For males, enhanced care was essentially cost and outcome neutral compared to usual care. The cost-effectiveness ratio estimates were robust to sensitivity analyses. Psychological side effects to the intervention may partially explain the limited effect of the intervention on outcomes for males.

LIMITATIONS

We consider these results exploratory because the SF-36 to quality-adjusted life year conversion formula is preliminary and because of the relatively small sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

The estimated cost-effectiveness ratio of this depression intervention is within the acceptable range for females, but not males. If replicated, these exploratory findings suggest that interventions to improve primary care depression treatment may need to be modified to improve their effectiveness in males while maintaining their effectiveness in females.

Do family physicians and internists differ in knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported approaches for depression?

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this investigation was to assess the relationship of primary care specialty training with self-assessed skill, knowledge, attitudes, and behavior toward depression recognition and management.

METHOD

A baseline self-report questionnaire was administered to 184 internists and 138 family physicians participating in a multisite depression intervention study.

RESULTS

There were no marked differences in knowledge of internists and family physicians regarding depression, in attitudes about the effectiveness of specific therapies, or in barriers to providing optimum treatment for depression. However, compared to internists, family physicians rated themselves as more skilled in the management of depression. When considering management of patients with moderate to severe depression, family physicians were more likely to report that they prescribed a selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitor (relative odds (RO) = 3.51, 95 percent Confidence interval (CI) [2.19, 5.60] and to personally counsel patients (RO = 1.97, 95 percent CI [1.16, 3.38]) more than half the patients, but were less likely to refer to a specialist in mental health (RO = 0.52, 95 percent CI [0.33, 0.82]) than were internists. Additional potentially influential characteristics did not wholly account for the reported differences in practice according to specialty. Physicians of both specialties expressed considerable uncertainty in their knowledge of psychotherapy and in their evaluation of the effectiveness of other strategies for the prevention of recurrence of depression.

CONCLUSION

Strategies to improve mental health care should account for the orientation of primary care physicians to mental health issues.

The somatization in primary care study: a tale of three diagnoses

Somatization is a common phenomenon that has been defined in many ways. The two most widely used diagnoses, Somatization Disorder (SD) and Abridged Somatization Disorder (ASD), are based on lifetime unexplained symptoms. However, reports indicate instability in lifetime symptom recall among somatizing patients. Multisomatoform disorder (MSD) is a new diagnosis based on current unexplained symptoms. To understand how knowledge about SD and ASD translates to MSD, we examined the diagnostic concordance, impairment and health care utilization of these groups in a sample from the Somatization in Primary Care Study. The diagnostic concordance was high between MSD and SD, but lower between MSD and ASD. All three groups reported considerable physical impairment (measured using the PCS subscale of the SF-36). The mental health (MCS) scores for the three groups were only slightly lower than those of the general population. Over the course of one year, physical functioning fell significantly for all three groups. Mental functioning did not change significantly for any of the three groups over this period. Utilization patterns were very similar for the three groups. The high prevalence, serious impairment, and worsening physical functioning over the course of one year suggest the importance of developing interventions in primary care to alleviate the impaired physical functioning and reduce utilization in somatizing patients. MSD should be a useful diagnosis for targeting these interventions because it identifies a sizable cohort of somatizing patients reporting impairment of comparable severity to full SD, using a more efficient diagnostic algorithm based on current symptoms.

Managing depression as a chronic disease: a randomised trial of ongoing treatment in primary care

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the long term effect of ongoing intervention to improve treatment of depression in primary care.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Twelve primary care practices across the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

211 adults beginning a new treatment episode for major depression; 94% of patients assigned to ongoing intervention participated.

INTERVENTION

Practices assigned to ongoing intervention encouraged participating patients to engage in active treatment, using practice nurses to provide care management over 24 months.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patients' report of remission and functioning.

RESULTS

Ongoing intervention significantly improved both symptoms and functioning at 24 months, increasing remission by 33 percentage points (95% confidence interval 7% to 46%), improving emotional functioning by 24 points (11 to 38) and physical functioning by 17 points (6 to 28). By 24 months, 74% of patients in enhanced care reported remission, with emotional functioning exceeding 90% of population norms and physical functioning approaching 75% of population norms.

CONCLUSIONS

Ongoing intervention increased remission rates and improved indicators of emotional and physical functioning. Studies are needed to compare the cost effectiveness of ongoing depression management with other chronic disease treatment routinely undertaken by primary care.

Use, quality, and outcomes of care for mental health: the rural perspective

This review synthesizes empirical research in rural mental health services to identify current research priorities to improve the mental health of rural Americans. Using a conceptual framework of the multiple determinants of use, quality, and outcomes, the authors address (1) how key constructs are operationalized, (2) their theoretical influence on the care process, (3) reported differences for nonmetropolitan and metropolitan individuals or within nonmetropolitan individuals, (4) salient issues rural advocates have raised, and (5) key research questions. While the authors recognize that rurality is a useful political umbrella to organize advocacy efforts, they propose that investigators no longer employ any of the multiple definitions of the term in the literature as even intrarural comparisons have not provided compelling evidence about the underlying causes of observed outcomes differences. Until these underlying causes have been identified, it is difficult to determine which components of the nonmetropolitan service system need to be improved.

Treatment of depression in rural Arkansas: policy implications for improving care

Policy-makers have long suspected that greater barriers to care result in depressed rural residents being less likely to receive high-quality treatment. This study recruited 470 depressed community residents in a 1992 telephone survey, followed 95 percent of them through one year, and abstracted additional data on their health care utilization from insurance claims, medical and pharmacy records. Bivariate and multivariate models demonstrated that during the year following the baseline, there were no significant rural-urban differences in the rate (probability of any outpatient depression treatment), type (probability of receiving general medical depression care only), or quality (completion of guideline-concordant acute-stage care) of outpatient depression treatment. Annual expenditures for outpatient depression treatment were lower for rural subjects compared with their urban counterparts. Rural subjects had 3.05 times the odds of being admitted to a hospital for physical problems and 3.06 times the odds of being admitted to a hospital for mental health problems during the year following baseline compared with urban subjects. Cost-offset analyses demonstrate that every dollar invested in depression treatment was associated with a $2.61 decrease in the cost of treating physical problems in depressed rural residents. Limited insurance coverage and limited availability of services were the most significant barriers to specialty and general medical outpatient treatment for depression in both rural and urban residents. More than 80 percent of depressed residents in both rural and urban areas visited a primary care provider during the year following baseline. The potential cost offset of depression treatment in rural populations plus the improvement in productivity observed in both rural and urban populations indicate that it may be economically possible to improve quality of care for depression without bankrupting an already strained health care budget.

Barriers to initiating depression treatment in primary care practice

OBJECTIVE AND DESIGN

This study used qualitative and quantitative methods to examine the reasons primary care physicians and nurses offered for their inability to initiate guideline-concordant acute-phase care for patients with current major depression.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

Two hundred thirty-nine patients with 5 or more symptoms of depression seeing 12 physicians in 6 primary care practices were randomized to the intervention arm of a trial of the effectiveness of depression treatment. Sixty-six (27.6%) patients identified as failing to meet criteria for guideline-concordant treatment 8 weeks following the index visit were the focus of this analysis.

METHODS

The research team interviewed the 12 physicians and 6 nurse care managers to explore the major reasons depressed patients fail to receive guideline-concordant acute-phase care. This information was used to develop a checklist of barriers to depression care. The 12 physicians then completed the checklist for each of the 64 patients for whom he or she was the primary care provider. Physicians chose which barriers they felt applied to each patient and weighted the importance of the barrier by assigning a total of 100 points for each patient. Cluster analysis of barrier scores identified naturally occurring groups of patients with common barrier profiles.

RESULTS

The cluster analysis produced a 5-cluster solution with profiles characterized by patient resistance (19 patients, 30.6%), patient noncompliance with visits (15 patients, 24.2%), physician judgment overruled the guideline (12 patients, 19.3%), patient psychosocial burden (8 patients, 12.9%), and health care system problems (8 patients, 12.9%). The physicians assigned 4,707 (75.9%) of the 6,200 weighting points to patient-centered barriers. Physician-centered barriers accounted for 927 (15.0%) and system barriers accounted for 566 (9.1%) of weighting points. Twenty-eight percent of the patients not initiating guideline-concordant acute-stage care went on to receive additional care and met criteria for remission at 6 months, with no statistical difference across the 5 patient clusters.

CONCLUSIONS

Current interventions fail to address barriers to initiating guideline-concordant acute-stage care faced by more than a quarter of depressed primary care patients. Physicians feel that barriers arise most frequently from factors centered with the patients, their psychosocial circumstances, and their attitudes and beliefs about depression and its care. Physicians less frequently make judgments that overrule the guidelines, but do so when patients have complex illness patterns. Further descriptive and experimental studies are needed to confirm and further examine barriers to depression care. Because few untreated patients improve without acute-stage care, additional work is also needed to develop new intervention components that address these barriers.

Reliability of the services assessment for children and adolescents

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the test-retest reliability of a new instrument, the Services Assessment for Children and Adolescents (SACA), for children's use of mental health services.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was undertaken at two sites. The St. Louis site used a volunteer sample recruited from mental health clinics and local schools. The Ventura County, California, site used a double-blind, community-based sample seeded with cases of service-using children. Participating families completed the SACA and were retested within four to 14 days. The reliability of service use items was calculated with use of the kappa statistic.

RESULTS

The SACA- Parent Version had excellent test-retest reliability for both lifetime service use and previous 12-month use. The SACA also had good to excellent reliability when administered to children aged 11 and older for lifetime and 12-month use. Reliability figures for children aged nine and ten years were considerably lower for lifetime and 12-month use. The younger children's responses suggested that they were confused about some questions.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that parents and older children can reliably report use of mental health services by using the SACA. The SACA can be used to collect currently unavailable information about use of mental health services.

The process and outcomes of care for major depression in rural family practice settings

Although primary care physicians provide the majority of care for rural residents with major depression, little is known about the quality of the care they provide. The aim of this study was to characterize the process and outcomes of care for rural patients with major depression, and to examine the relationship between the process and outcomes of care in this population. Six hundred and thirty-one patients in 21 primary care practices in small towns were screened; 47 patients (7.4% of patients screened) meeting DSM-III-R criteria for current major depression were recruited into the study, and 38 (81.0% of patients recruited) were followed an average of five months later using the Depression Outcomes Module (Rost, Smith, Burnam, & Burns, 1992). While 24 (63.1%) of the 38 depressed subjects received a prescription for one or more antidepressants between the index visit and follow-up, only 11 (28.9%) received pharmacologic treatment in concordance with the new Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) guidelines; 26 (68.4%) of 38 depressed patients continued to meet criteria for major depression at five months. Those who received pharmacologic treatment concordant with AHCPR guidelines showed more improvement at follow-up. The findings suggest that outcomes for major depression may be worse in rural family practice settings than in urban settings. The study also demonstrates that AHCPR guidelines define effective treatment for major depression in the study sample. The Depression Outcomes Module appears to be a reliable and valid instrument for monitoring the outcomes of care for major depression in family practice settings.

Provider choice and utility loss due to selective contracting in rural and urban areas

An econometric model estimated the disutility of traveling long distances for depression treatment, and simulations calculated the utility loss associated with selective contracting in rural and urban areas. A representative sample of depression patients (n = 106) and all practicing providers (n = 3,710) in Arkansas were identified and the distances between them were calculated. Using discrete choice analysis, patient preferences for provider type and travel distance were estimated. Simulations calculated the utility loss associated with alternative scenarios of selective contracting. Provider type and distance were significant predictors of provider choice. To equate the utility loss associated with selective contracting in rural and urban areas, a slightly higher proportion of rural physicians and a substantially higher proportion of rural mental health specialists must be contracted. To avoid further reductions in geographic access, managed care organizations should contract with a higher proportion of rural providers than urban providers.

Improving depression outcomes in community primary care practice: a randomized trial of the quEST intervention. Quality Enhancement by Strategic Teaming

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether redefining primary care team roles would improve outcomes for patients beginning a new treatment episode for major depression.

DESIGN

Following stratification, 6 of 12 practices were randomly assigned to the intervention condition. Intervention effectiveness was evaluated by patient reports of 6-month change in 100-point depression symptom and functional status scales.

SETTING

Twelve community primary care practices across the country employing no onsite mental health professional.

PATIENTS

Using two-stage screening, practices enrolled 479 depressed adult patients (73.4% of those eligible); 90.2% completed six-month follow-up.

INTERVENTION

Two primary care physicians, one nurse, and one administrative staff member in each intervention practice received brief training to improve the detection and management of major depression.

MAIN RESULTS

In patients beginning a new treatment episode, the intervention improved depression symptoms by 8.2 points (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2 to 16.1; P =.04). Within this group, the intervention improved depression symptoms by 16.2 points (95% CI, 4.5 to 27.9; P =.007), physical role functioning by 14.1 points (95% CI, 1.1 to 29.2; P =.07), and satisfaction with care (P =.02) for patients who reported antidepressant medication was an acceptable treatment at baseline. Patients already in treatment at enrollment did not benefit from the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

In practices without onsite mental health professionals, brief interventions training primary care teams to assume redefined roles can significantly improve depression outcomes in patients beginning a new treatment episode. Such interventions should target patients who report that antidepressant medication is an acceptable treatment for their condition. More research is needed to determine how primary care teams can best sustain these redefined roles over time.

The relationship between quality and outcomes in routine depression care

OBJECTIVE

This longitudinal, nonexperimental study examined whether depression treatment provided in concordance with guidelines developed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is associated with improved clinical outcomes.

METHODS

The medical, insurance, and pharmacy records of a community-based sample of 435 subjects who screened positive for current major depression were abstracted to ascertain whether depression treatment was received and whether it was provided in accordance with AHRQ guidelines. Regression analyses estimated the impact of guideline-concordant treatment on the change in depression severity and on mental and physical health over a six-month period. An instrumental variables analysis was used to check the sensitivity of the results to selection bias.

RESULTS

A total of 106 subjects were treated for depression by 105 different primary care and specialty providers. Sixty percent of the sample had current major depression, and about 40 percent had subthreshold depression. Only 29 percent of the patients received guideline-concordant treatment. For patients with major depression, guideline-concordant care was significantly and substantially associated with improved depression severity but not with improvements in overall mental or physical health. The instrumental variables analysis indicated that the standard regression analysis underestimated the treatment effect by 21 percent. For those with subthreshold depression, guideline-concordant care was not associated with improved outcomes.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This community-based, nonexperimental study found a positive relationship between the quality of care for depression and clinical outcomes for patients with major depression in routine practice settings.

Competing demands from physical problems: effect on initiating and completing depression care over 6 months

OBJECTIVE AND DESIGN

To evaluate a cohort of patients with major depression to examine the effect of competing demands on depression care during multiple visits over 6 months.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

Ninety-two patients with 5 or more symptoms of depression and no recent depression treatment were evaluated by 12 primary care physicians in 6 practices in the usual-care arm of an effectiveness trial of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research Depression Guidelines.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Treatment was considered to be initiated if the patient reported starting a guideline-concordant antidepressant medication or making a visit for specialty counseling. Treatment completion was defined as either a 3-month course of guideline-concordant antidepressant use or completion of 8 or more specialty counseling visits.

RESULTS

Among the 92 patients reporting no recent treatment at study enrollment, 57% reported starting and 17% reported completing a course of guideline-concordant antidepressant medication and or specialty counseling at the 6-month interview. The severity of physical problems among patients with high enthusiasm for depression treatment decreased the odds that patients would initiate depression therapy. Severity of physical problems had no observable effect on completing depression therapy in the group of patients who initiated treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Physical problems compete with depression for attention over multiple visits in untreated patients who are enthusiastic about getting care for their emotional problems. Interventions are needed for this high-risk group, because depression treatment could potentially enhance patients' treatment of their physical problems. Arch Fam Med. 2000;9:1059-1064

Large employers' selection criteria in purchasing behavioral health benefits

To determine the criteria other than cost large employers use in selecting and monitoring behavioral health benefits, this study interviewed 31 of 44 (70.4%) randomly selected corporations employing at least 5,000 workers. While more than 60% of employers considered administrative efficiency and provider access to be very influential in their selection of behavioral health benefits, only 12.9% (95% confidence interval 0.7%-25.1%) considered clinical outcomes. Employers who considered clinical outcomes in their purchasing decision reported significantly greater satisfaction with the quality and cost of their behavioral health benefits. Following selection, 38.7% of corporations used employee complaints to monitor quality problems in their behavioral health benefits; 3.2% used clinical outcomes. If society expects employers to purchase behavioral health care on the basis of quality as well as cost, more employers need better indicators of quality.

Rural at-risk drinkers: correlates and one-year use of alcoholism treatment services

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to identify a community sample of rural and urban at-risk drinkers, to compare them in terms of sociodemographics, access measures and severity of illness, and to study them prospectively to identify rural/urban differences in use of 12-month alcoholism treatment services.

METHOD

A brief telephone screening interview of over 12,000 respondents in six southern states identified a sample of at-risk drinkers. A baseline interview was administered to 733 individuals (67% men, 50% rural residents) that obtained information on substance use and psychiatric disorders, psychosocial factors, social support, four dimensions of access to alcoholism treatment services and prior alcoholism service use. Interviews at 6 and 12 months obtained self-reports of subsequent receipt of alcoholism treatment services.

RESULTS

We identified modest differences between rural and urban at-risk drinkers. The rural sample was significantly less well-educated and reported significantly less affordability, accessibility and acceptability of some treatment services (p < .05). Rural at-risk drinkers also appeared to possess significantly greater illness characteristics, including more lifetime DSM-IV criteria for alcohol use disorders, more frequent recent alcohol disorders and more chronic medical problems (p < .05). The longitudinal sample comprised 579 participants, of whom 7% reported receiving some form of alcoholism treatment services in the year after the initial interview. In bivariate analysis, rural drinkers in the sample reported greater use of help for their drinking, more use of psychiatrists and more use of inpatient, outpatient and ER treatment settings than did their urban counterparts. However, significant independent predictors of 12-month alcoholism treatment use in multiple logistic regression were female gender (OR = 0.3), greater social support (OR = 2.2) and illness or severity characteristics including recent diagnosis of alcohol dependence (OR = 3.3), social consequences of drinking (OR = 1.7), concurrent medical problems (OR = 2.1) and prior treatment experience (OR = 4.4).

CONCLUSIONS

We found modest differences among rural and urban at-risk drinkers and some evidence of greater barriers to treatment and greater illness severity among rural inhabitants. Further research is needed to know whether community interventions with social networks and other interventions to improve social support may help bring at-risk drinkers into treatment in both urban and rural settings as well as provide other support for sobriety.

Designing and implementing a primary care intervention trial to improve the quality and outcome of care for major depression

Complex interventions, which have been shown to improve primary care depression outcomes, are difficult to disseminate to routine practice settings. To address this problem, we developed a brief intervention to train primary care physicians and nurses employed by the practice to improve the detection and management of major depression. Before recruitment began, the research team conducted academic detailing conference calls with primary care physicians and nurses, and provided in-person training with nurses and administrative staff. Administrative staff screened over 11,000 patients before their visits to identify those with probable major depression. Primary care physicians delegated increased responsibility to office nurses, who educated over 90% of patients about effective depression treatment and systematically monitored their progress over time. Early results demonstrate that community primary care practices can rebundle traditional team roles over the short-term to provide more systematic mental health treatment without adding additional personnel. A rigorous evaluation of this effort will reduce time-consuming, expensive, and often unsuccessful efforts to "translate" research intervention findings into everyday practice.

The role of competing demands in the treatment provided primary care patients with major depression

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether competing demands explain the appearance of inadequate primary care depression treatment observed at a single visit.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional patient survey.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

Two hundred forty patients with 5 or more symptoms of depression seeing 12 physicians in 6 primary care practices, representing 77.4% of the depressed patients identified through 2-stage screening of more than 11,000 primary care attenders.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

In patients with elevated depressive symptoms, discussing depression as a possible diagnosis in untreated patients, and changing depression management in treated patients.

RESULTS

Physicians and patients discussed depression in 46 (47.9%) of 96 untreated patients; physicians changed depression treatment recommendations in 87 (60.4%) of 144 treated patients with current symptoms. Chronic physical comorbidity decreased the odds that physicians and untreated patients discussed depression as a possible diagnosis (odds ratio = 0.66, P = .01). New problems decreased the odds that treatment recommendations would be changed in treated patients who remained depressed (odds ratio = 0.39, P = .05). Physicians and untreated patients were more likely to discuss depression as a possible diagnosis if patients reported antidepressant medication was acceptable (odds ratio = 4.57, P = .01) and less likely to discuss depression if patients reported specialty care counseling was acceptable (odds ratio = 0.33, P = .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The attention depression gets during a given medical visit is less associated with the severity of the patient's depressive symptoms than with the number or recency of other problems the patient has. If competing demands provide ongoing barriers to depression treatment, interventions will be needed to assure that patients with chronic physical problems receive high-quality mental health care in the primary care setting.

The impact of geographic accessibility on the intensity and quality of depression treatment

OBJECTIVES

For depression, this research measures the impact of travel time on visit frequency and the probability of receiving treatment in concordance with AHCPR guidelines.

METHODS

The medical, insurance, and pharmacy records of a community-based sample of 435 subjects with current depression were abstracted to identify those treated for depression, to determine the number of depression visits made over a 6-month period, and to ascertain whether treatment was provided in concordance with AHCPR guidelines. A Geographic Information System was used to calculate the travel time from each patient to their preferred provider. Poisson and logistic regression analyses were used to estimate the impact of travel time on visit frequency and guideline-concordance, controlling for patient casemix.

RESULTS

In the community-based sample, 106 subjects were treated for depression by 105 different preferred providers. About one-third (30.7%) were treated by a mental health specialist. One average, patients made 2.8 depression visits over the 6-month period. One-third (28.9%) of the patients received guideline-concordant treatment for depression. The average number of visits for those receiving guideline-concordant care was significantly greater than for those not receiving guideline-concordant care (P < 0.01). Travel time to the preferred provider was significantly associated with making fewer visits (P < 0.0001) and having a lower likelihood of receiving guideline-concordant care (P < 0.05).

DISCUSSION

For depression, both pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy treatment regimens require frequent provider contact to be effective. This study suggests that travel barriers may prevent rural patients from making a sufficient number of visits to receive effective guideline-concordant treatment.

Improving research on primary care patients with mental health problems: observations from an investigator

BACKGROUND AND AIMS OF THE MANUSCRIPT: The purpose of this manuscript is to define under-recognized perspectives that the primary care research field needs to integrate into research initiatives, and to discuss practical strategies to ensure the successful implementation of these initiatives. METHODS: Perspectives and strategies were identified through personal experience, informal discussion with ten senior investigators in the field and a selected literature review. RESULTS: Research on improving treatment for the mental health problems of primary care patients will progress more rapidly if investigators explore the usefulness of a competing demands framework, integrate a readiness to change perspective in developing more individualized interventions for providers and patients, evaluate interventions for their effect on productivity and test alternative interventions particularly in patients who fail to benefit from currently accepted treatment. The implementation of these initiatives will be more successful if research teams define unique scientific agendas, invest energy in pursuing questions whose value is undisputed by multiple parties, increase the rate of inter-institutional exchange between senior and junior investigators, pilot test assumptions that affect project budget and timeline, build in a limited amount of slack time in early phases of project implementation and network effectively. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: Investigator efforts to define critical questions for the primary care management of mental health problems will be enhanced if they revisit the definition of their research agendas in the light of new perspectives that are emerging in the field. Similarly, the implementation of these agendas will be strengthened if investigators make conscious attempts to use one or more of the strategies suggested.

Rural and urban problem drinkers in six Southern states

In 1994-1997 we conducted a four-wave longitudinal study of rural and urban problem drinkers in six Southern United States states to examine rural/urban differences in predictors of service use and course of drinking. This report describes early rural/urban differences from a brief interview with over 3,000 community individuals and among 525 identified problem drinkers. Overall, we found rural/urban differences in alcohol consumption at the community level but only demographic differences among problem drinkers. Our newly developed screening interview for alcohol disorders had excellent agreement (kappa = 0.72) for lifetime disorders and good agreement (kappa = 0.53) for recent disorders against structured diagnostic interviews for DSM-IV criteria.

Primary care physicians' approach to depressive disorders. Effects of physician specialty and practice structure

BACKGROUND

Because primary care physicians (PCPs) are the initial health care contact for most patients with depression, they are in a unique position to provide early detection and integrated care for persons with depression and coexisting medical illness. Despite this opportunity, care for depression is often suboptimal.

OBJECTIVE

To better understand how to design interventions to improve care, we examine PCPs' approach to recognition and management and the effects of physician specialty and degree of capitation on barriers to care for 3 common depressive disorders.

METHODS

A 53-item questionnaire was mailed to 3375 randomly selected subjects, divided equally among family physicians, general internists, and obstetrician-gynecologists. The questionnaire assessed reported diagnosis and treatment practices for each subject's most recent patient recognized to have major or minor depression or dysthymia and barriers to the recognition and treatment of depression. Eligible physicians were PCPs who worked at least half-time seeing outpatients for longitudinal care.

RESULTS

Of 2316 physicians with known eligibility, 1350 (58.3%) returned the questionnaire. Respondents were family physicians (n = 621), general internists (n = 474), and obstetrician-gynecologists (n = 255). The PCPs report recognition and evaluation practices related to their most recent case as follows: recognition by routine questioning or screening for depression (9%), diagnosis based on formal criteria (33.7%), direct questioning about suicide (58%), and assessment for substance abuse (68.1%) or medical causes of depression (84.1%). Reported treatment practices were watchful waiting only (6.1%), PCP counseling for more than 5 minutes (39.7%), antidepressant medication prescription (72.5%), and mental health referral (38.4%). Diagnostic evaluation and treatment approaches varied significantly by specialty but not by the type of depression or degree of capitation. Physician barriers differed by specialty more than by degree of capitation. In contrast, organizational barriers, such as time for an adequate history and the affordability of mental health professionals, differed by degree of capitation more than by physician specialty. Patient barriers were common but did not vary by physician specialty or degree of capitation.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial proportion of PCPs report diagnostic and treatment approaches that are consistent with high-quality care. Differences in approach were associated more with specialty than with type of depressive disorder or degree of capitation. Quality improvement efforts need to (1) be tailored for different physician specialties, (2) emphasize the importance of differentiating major depression from other depressive disorders and tailoring the treatment approach accordingly, and (3) address organizational barriers to best practice and knowledge gaps about depression treatment.

Treating depression in staff-model versus network-model managed care organizations

OBJECTIVE

To compare primary care providers' depression-related knowledge, attitudes, and practices and to understand how these reports vary for providers in staff or group-model managed care organizations (MCOs) compared with network-model MCOs including independent practice associations and preferred provider organizations.

DESIGN

Survey of primary care providers' depression-related practices in 1996.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We surveyed 410 providers, from 80 outpatient clinics, in 11 MCOs participating in four studies designed to improve the quality of depression care in primary care.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We measured knowledge based on depression guidelines, attitudes (beliefs about burden, skill, and barriers) related to depression, and reported behavior. Providers in both types of MCO are equally knowledgeable about treating depression (better knowledge of pharmacologic than psychotherapeutic treatments) and perceive equivalent skills in treating depression. However, compared with network-model providers, staff/group-model providers have stronger beliefs that treating depression is burdensome to their practice. While more staff/group-model providers reported time limitations as a barrier to optimal depression treatment, more network-model providers reported limited access to mental health specialty referral as a barrier. Accordingly, these staff/group-model providers are more likely to treat patients with major depression through referral (51% vs 38%) or to assess but not treat (17% vs 7%), and network-model providers are more likely to prescribe antidepressants (57% vs 6%) as first-line treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas the providers from staff/group-model MCOs had greater access to and relied more on referral, the providers from network-model organizations were more likely to treat depression themselves. Given varying attitudes and behaviors, improving primary care for the treatment of depression will require unique strategies beyond enhancing technical knowledge for the two types of MCOs.

Expenditures for the treatment of major depression

OBJECTIVE

Health policy makers lack accurate information about per capita spending for the treatment of major depression, the distribution of those expenditures, and the proportion of the health care dollar consumed by depression treatment.

METHOD

The authors recruited and followed a community cohort of individuals with major depression; the 298 subjects were either enrolled in fee-for-service insurance plans or self-insured. Charges for all health care services received during the year following baseline were abstracted from medical and insurance records.

RESULTS

Over the course of 1 year, 48.1% of the subjects received depression treatment. The per capita total expenditure for inpatient and outpatient depression treatment averaged $631, with a median of $152, for the treated subjects. Just 4.9% of the treated subjects consumed 45.0% of the outpatient expenditures. Depression treatment consumed only 8 cents of every health care dollar spent on the patients treated for depression.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies are needed to examine how the level and distribution of expenditures for depression treatment change under managed care and to determine whether and how any differences affect outcomes in the afflicted population. Managed care attempts to contain costs by limiting outpatient care may not affect total health care expenditures dramatically, since depression treatment consumes such a minuscule portion of the health care dollar spent on this population.