Literature Collection

BACKGROUND: Health care delivery systems are increasingly integrating physical and mental health services to address patients' complex needs, contain costs, and improve satisfaction. Therefore, it is critical to understand whether adoption of integrated care models is effective in diverse settings. OBJECTIVE: This study examined the effect of integrated care on physical and mental health outcomes among low-income Latino participants on the US-Mexico border. RESEARCH DESIGN: In this quasi-experimental multisite study, individual-level data were pooled from 8 studies of locally adapted integrated care models. SUBJECTS: Participants were 18 years or older and had 1 or more chronic conditions: diabetes, depression, hypertension, or obesity. The study enrolled 4226 participants with 2254 participants in the intervention group and 1972 in the comparison group. MEASURES: Primary outcomes were depressive symptoms as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score and blood glucose measured by hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). Blood pressure, body mass index, and quality of life were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Multivariable linear regression analyses indicated intervention participants had significantly lower Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores (β=-0.39, P=0.03) and HbA1c (β=-0.14, P=0.02) at 12 months compared with comparison group participants. Stratified analyses showed improvements in HbA1c were even greater among intervention participants who had diabetes, depression, severe and persistent mental illness, were older or female compared with their counterparts in the comparison group. CONCLUSIONS: Health care is constantly transforming, making it critical to study these changes across populations and settings. Findings from this study indicate that integrated care can significantly improve mental and physical health in an underserved Latino population.

BACKGROUND: Individuals living with severe mental illness can have significant emotional, physical and social challenges. Collaborative care combines clinical and organisational components. AIMS: We tested whether a primary care-based collaborative care model (PARTNERS) would improve quality of life for people with diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or other psychoses, compared with usual care. METHOD: We conducted a general practice-based, cluster randomised controlled superiority trial. Practices were recruited from four English regions and allocated (1:1) to intervention or control. Individuals receiving limited input in secondary care or who were under primary care only were eligible. The 12-month PARTNERS intervention incorporated person-centred coaching support and liaison work. The primary outcome was quality of life as measured by the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA). RESULTS: We allocated 39 general practices, with 198 participants, to the PARTNERS intervention (20 practices, 116 participants) or control (19 practices, 82 participants). Primary outcome data were available for 99 (85.3%) intervention and 71 (86.6%) control participants. Mean change in overall MANSA score did not differ between the groups (intervention: 0.25, s.d. 0.73; control: 0.21, s.d. 0.86; estimated fully adjusted between-group difference 0.03, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.31; P = 0.819). Acute mental health episodes (safety outcome) included three crises in the intervention group and four in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of a difference in quality of life, as measured with the MANSA, between those receiving the PARTNERS intervention and usual care. Shifting care to primary care was not associated with increased adverse outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Unless implementation of systematic depression screening is associated with timely treatment, quality measures based on screening are unlikely to improve outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of integrating systematic depression screening with clinical decision support on depression identification and treatment. DESIGN: Retrospective pre-post study. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with a primary care visit within a large integrated health system in 2016 were included. Adults diagnosed with depression in 2015 or prior to their initial primary care visit in 2016 were excluded. INTERVENTION: Initiation of systematic screening using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) which began in mid-2016. MAIN MEASURES: Depression diagnosis was based on ICD codes. Treatment was defined as (1) antidepressant prescription, (2) referral, or (3) evaluation by a behavioral health specialist. We used an adjusted linear regression model to identify whether the percentage of visits with a depression diagnosis was different before versus after implementation of systematic screening. An adjusted multilevel regression model was used to evaluate the association between screening and odds of treatment. KEY RESULTS: Our study population included 259,411 patients. After implementation, 59% of patients underwent screening. Three percent scored as having moderate to severe depression. The rate of depression diagnosis increased by 1.2% immediately after systematic screening (from 1.7 to 2.9%). The percent of patients with diagnosed depression who received treatment within 90 days increased from 64% before to 69% after implementation (p < 0.01) and the adjusted odds of treatment increased by 20% after implementation (AOR 1.20, 95% CI 1.12-1.28, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing systematic depression screening within a large health care system led to high rates of screening and increased rates of depression diagnosis and treatment.