Collaborative care for depressed patients with chronic medical conditions: a randomized trial in Puerto Rico. Can collaborative care address the needs of low-income Latinas with comorbid depression and cancer? Results from a randomized pilot study. A randomised controlled trial to test the feasibility of a collaborative care model for the management of depression in older people. Collaborative Depression Trial (CADET): multi-centre randomised controlled trial of collaborative care for depression--study protocol. A collaborative care depression management program for cardiac inpatients: depression characteristics and in-hospital outcomes. Effectiveness of collaborative care depression treatment in Veterans' Affairs primary care. Effectiveness of collaborative care in addressing depression treatment preferences among low-income Latinos. Collaborative care management of major depression among low-income, predominantly Hispanic subjects with diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Collaborative care for depression in UK primary care: a randomized controlled trial.
This study examined whether a collaborative care model for depression would improve clinical and functional outcomes for depressed patients with chronic general medical conditions in primary care practices in Puerto Rico.
                A total of 179 primary care patients with major depression and chronic general medical conditions were randomly assigned to receive collaborative care or usual care. The collaborative care intervention involved enhanced collaboration among physicians, mental health specialists, and care managers paired with depression-specific treatment guidelines, patient education, and follow-up. In usual care, study personnel informed the patient and provider of the diagnosis and encouraged patients to discuss treatment options with their provider. Depression severity was assessed with the Hopkins Symptom Checklist; social functioning was assessed with the 36-item Short Form.
                Compared with usual care, collaborative care significantly reduced depressive symptoms and improved social functioning in the six months after randomization. Integration of collaborative care in primary care practices considerably increased depressed patients' use of mental health services.
                Collaborative care significantly improved clinical symptoms and functional status of depressed patients with coexisting chronic general medical conditions receiving treatment for depression in primary care practices in Puerto Rico. These findings highlight the promise of the collaborative care model for strengthening the relationship between mental health and primary care services in Puerto Rico. In a pilot study, 55 low-income Latina patients with breast or cervical cancer and comorbid depression were randomly assigned to receive collaborative care as part of the Multifaceted Oncology Depression Program or usual care. Relative to patients in the usual care condition, patients receiving collaborative care were more likely to show>or=50% improvement in depressive symptoms as measured by the Personal Health Questionnaire (OR=4.51, 95% CI=1.07-18.93). Patients in the collaborative care program were also more likely to show improvement in emotional well-being (increase of 2.15) as measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Scale than were those receiving usual care (decrease of 0.50) (group difference=2.65, 95% CI: 0.18-5.12). Despite health system, provider, and patient barriers to care, these initial results suggest that patients in public sector oncology clinics can benefit from onsite depression treatment. Depression is the most common mental health disorder in people aged over 65 years. Late-life depression is associated with chronic illness and disability.
                To investigate the feasibility of a collaborative care model for depression in older people in a primary care setting.
                Randomised controlled trial with 16-weeks follow up.
                A primary care trust in Manchester.
                Participants were 105 people aged 60 years or older who scored 5 or more on the Geriatric Depression Scale; 53 were randomly allocated to an intervention group and 52 to a usual care group. The intervention group received care managed by a community psychiatric nurse who delivered an intervention comprising a facilitated self-help programme with close liaison with primary care professionals and old-age psychiatry according to a defined protocol. The usual care group received usual GP care. A nested qualitative study explored the views of the health professionals and patients regarding the acceptability and effectiveness of the intervention.
                The main outcome measure was recovery from depression. Patients in the intervention group were less likely to suffer from major depressive disorder at follow up compared with usual care (0.32, 95% confidence = interval = 0.11 to 0.93, P = 0.036). The qualitative component of the study demonstrated the acceptability of the intervention to patients.
                A model of collaborative care for older people with depression, used in a primary care setting with a facilitated self-help intervention is more effective than usual GP care. This study demonstrates that the implementation of a collaborative care model is feasible in UK primary care and that the intervention is effective and acceptable to patients. Comprising of both organisational and patient level components, collaborative care is a potentially powerful intervention for improving depression treatment in UK primary Care. However, as previous models have been developed and evaluated in the United States, it is necessary to establish the effect of collaborative care in the UK in order to determine whether this innovative treatment model can replicate benefits for patients outside the US. This Phase III trial was preceded by a Phase II patient level RCT, following the MRC Complex Intervention Framework.
                A multi-centre controlled trial with cluster-randomised allocation of GP practices. GP practices will be randomised to usual care control or to "collaborative care" - a combination of case manager coordinated support and brief psychological treatment, enhanced specialist and GP communication. The primary outcome will be symptoms of depression as assessed by the PHQ-9.
                If collaborative care is demonstrated to be effective we will have evidence to enable the NHS to substantially improve the organisation of depressed patients in primary care, and to assist primary care providers to deliver a model of enhanced depression care which is both effective and acceptable to patients. Depression in cardiac patients is common, under-recognized, and independently associated with mortality.
                Our objectives in this initial report from a 6-month longitudinal trial were to determine whether a collaborative care program improves rates of depression treatment by discharge among patients hospitalized with acute cardiovascular disease, and to assess key clinical characteristics of depression in this cohort.
                This was a prospective, randomized trial comparing collaborative care and usual care interventions for depressed cardiac patients who were admitted to cardiac units in an urban academic medical center. For collaborative care subjects, the care manager performed a multi-component depression intervention in the hospital that included patient education and treatment coordination; usual care subjects' inpatient providers were informed of the depression diagnosis.
                The mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 for subjects (N = 175) was 17.6 (SD 3.5; range 11-26), consistent with moderate-severe depression. The majority of subjects had depression for over one month (n = 134; 76.6%) and a prior depressive episode (n = 124; 70.8%); nearly one-half (n = 75; 42.9%) had thoughts that life was not worth living in the preceding 2 weeks. Collaborative care subjects were far more likely to receive adequate depression treatment by discharge (71.9% collaborative care vs. 9.5% usual care; p < 0.001).
                Depression identified by systematic screening in hospitalized cardiac patients appears was prolonged, and of substantial severity. A collaborative care depression management model appears to vastly increase rates of appropriate treatment by discharge.
                Copyright © 2011 The Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. To compare collaborative care for treatment of depression in primary care with consult-liaison (CL) care. In collaborative care, a mental health team provided a treatment plan to the primary care provider, telephoned patients to support adherence to the plan, reviewed treatment results, and suggested modifications to the provider. In CL care, study clinicians informed the primary care provider of the diagnosis and facilitated referrals to psychiatry residents practicing in the primary care clinic.
                Patients were randomly assigned to treatment model by clinic firm.
                VA primary care clinic.
                One hundred sixty-eight collaborative care and 186 CL patients who met criteria for major depression and/or dysthymia.
                Hopkins Symptom Checklist (SCL-20), Short Form (SF)-36, Sheehan Disability Scale.
                Collaborative care produced greater improvement than CL in depressive symptomatology from baseline to 3 months (SCL-20 change scores), but at 9 months there was no significant difference. The intervention increased the proportion of patients receiving prescriptions and cognitive behavioral therapy. Collaborative care produced significantly greater improvement on the Sheehan at 3 months. A greater proportion of collaborative care patients exhibited an improvement in SF-36 Mental Component Score of 5 points or more from baseline to 9 months.
                Collaborative care resulted in more rapid improvement in depression symptomatology, and a more rapid and sustained improvement in mental health status compared to the more standard model. Mounting evidence indicates that collaboration between primary care providers and mental health specialists can improve depression treatment and supports the necessary changes in clinic structure and incentives. This study assessed treatment preferences among low-income Latino patients in public-sector primary care clinics and examined whether a collaborative care intervention that included patient education and allowed patients to choose between medication, therapy, or both would increase the likelihood that patients received preferred treatment.
                A total of 339 Latino patients with probable depressive disorders were recruited; participants completed a baseline conjoint analysis preference survey and were randomly assigned to receive the intervention or enhanced usual care. At 16 weeks, a patient survey assessed depression treatment received during the study period. Logistic regression models were constructed to estimate treatment preferences, examine patient characteristics associated with treatment preferences, and examine patient characteristics associated with a match between stated preference and actual treatment received.
                The conjoint analysis preference survey showed that patients preferred counseling or counseling plus medication over antidepressant medication alone and that they preferred treatment in primary care over specialty mental health care, but they showed no significant preference for individual versus group treatment. Patients also indicated that individual education sessions, telephone sessions, transportation assistance, and family involvement were barrier reduction strategies that would enhance their likelihood of accepting treatment. Compared with patients assigned to usual care, those in the intervention group were 21 times as likely to receive preferred treatment. Among all participants, women, unemployed persons, those who spoke English, and those referred by providers were more likely to receive preferred treatment.
                Collaborative care interventions that include psychotherapy can increase the likelihood that Latino patients receive preferred care; however, special efforts may be needed to address preferences of working persons, men, and Spanish-speaking patients. To determine whether evidence-based socioculturally adapted collaborative depression care improves receipt of depression care and depression and diabetes outcomes in low-income Hispanic subjects.
                This was a randomized controlled trial of 387 diabetic patients (96.5% Hispanic) with clinically significant depression recruited from two public safety-net clinics from August 2005 to July 2007 and followed over 18 months. Intervention (INT group) included problem-solving therapy and/or antidepressant medication based on a stepped-care algorithm; first-line treatment choice; telephone treatment response, adherence, and relapse prevention follow-up over 12 months; plus systems navigation assistance. Enhanced usual care (EUC group) included standard clinic care plus patient receipt of depression educational pamphlets and a community resource list.
                INT patients had significantly greater depression improvement (> or =50% reduction in Symptom Checklist-20 depression score from baseline; 57, 62, and 62% vs. the EUC group's 36, 42, and 44% at 6, 12, and 18 months, respectively; odds ratio 2.46-2.57; P < 0.001). Mixed-effects linear regression models showed a significant study group-by-time interaction over 18 months in diabetes symptoms; anxiety; Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) emotional, physical, and pain-related functioning; Sheehan disability; financial situation; and number of social stressors (P = 0.04 for disability and SF-12 physical functioning, P < 0.001 for all others) but no study group-by-time interaction in A1C, diabetes complications, self-care management, or BMI.
                Socioculturally adapted collaborative depression care improved depression, functional outcomes, and receipt of depression treatment in predominantly Hispanic patients in safety-net clinics. Collaborative care is an effective intervention for depression which includes both organizational and patient-level intervention components. The effect in the UK is unknown, as is whether cluster- or patient-randomization would be the most appropriate design for a Phase III clinical trial.
                We undertook a Phase II patient-level randomized controlled trial in primary care, nested within a cluster-randomized trial. Depressed participants were randomized to 'collaborative care' - case manager-coordinated medication support and brief psychological treatment, enhanced specialist and GP communication - or a usual care control. The primary outcome was symptoms of depression (PHQ-9).
                We recruited 114 participants, 41 to the intervention group, 38 to the patient randomized control group and 35 to the cluster-randomized control group. For the intervention compared to the cluster control the PHQ-9 effect size was 0.63 (95% CI 0.18-1.07). There was evidence of substantial contamination between intervention and patient-randomized control participants with less difference between the intervention group and patient-randomized control group (-2.99, 95% CI -7.56 to 1.58, p=0.186) than between the intervention and cluster-randomized control group (-4.64, 95% CI -7.93 to -1.35, p=0.008). The intra-class correlation coefficient for our primary outcome was 0.06 (95% CI 0.00-0.32).
                Collaborative care is a potentially powerful organizational intervention for improving depression treatment in UK primary care, the effect of which is probably partly mediated through the organizational aspects of the intervention. A large Phase III cluster-randomized trial is required to provide the most methodologically accurate test of these initial encouraging findings.
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.