Literature Collection

Integrated behavioral health can improve primary care and mental health outcomes. Access to behavioral health and primary care services in Texas is in crisis because of high uninsurance rates, regulatory restrictions, and lack of workforce. To address gaps in access to care, a partnership formed among a large local mental health authority in central Texas, a federally designated rural health clinic, and the Texas A&M University School of Nursing to create an interprofessional team-based health care delivery model led by nurse practitioners in rural and medically underserved areas of central Texas. Academic-practice partners identified 5 clinics for an integrated behavioral health care delivery model. From July 1, 2020, through December 31, 2021, a total of 3183 patient visits were completed. Patients were predominantly female (n = 1719, 54%) and Hispanic (n = 1750, 55%); 1050 (33%) were living at or below the federal poverty level; and 1400 (44%) were uninsured. The purpose of this case study was to describe the first year of implementation of the integrated health care delivery model, barriers to implementation, challenges to sustainability, and successes. We analyzed data from multiple sources, including meeting minutes and agendas, grant reports, direct observations of clinic flow, and interviews with clinic staff, and identified common qualitative themes (eg, challenges to integration, sustainability of integration, outcome successes). Results revealed implementation challenges with the electronic health record, service integration, low staffing levels during a global pandemic, and effective communication. We also examined 2 patient cases to illustrate the success of integrated behavioral health and highlighted lessons learned from the implementation process, including the need for a robust electronic health record and organizational flexibility.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines on the management of depression recommend that practitioners use patient-reported outcome measures for the follow-up monitoring of symptoms, but there is a lack of evidence of benefit in terms of patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To test using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 questionnaire as a patient-reported outcome measure for monitoring depression, training practitioners in interpreting scores and giving patients feedback. DESIGN: Parallel-group, cluster-randomised superiority trial; 1 : 1 allocation to intervention and control. SETTING: UK primary care (141 group general practices in England and Wales). INCLUSION CRITERIA: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with a new episode of depressive disorder or symptoms, recruited mainly through medical record searches, plus opportunistically in consultations. EXCLUSIONS: Current depression treatment, dementia, psychosis, substance misuse and risk of suicide. INTERVENTION: Administration of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 questionnaire with patient feedback soon after diagnosis, and at follow-up 10-35 days later, compared with usual care. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, symptom scores at 12 weeks. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, scores at 26 weeks; antidepressant drug treatment and mental health service contacts; social functioning (Work and Social Adjustment Scale) and quality of life (EuroQol 5-Dimension, five-level) at 12 and 26 weeks; service use over 26 weeks to calculate NHS costs; patient satisfaction at 26 weeks (Medical Informant Satisfaction Scale); and adverse events. SAMPLE SIZE: The original target sample of 676 patients recruited was reduced to 554 due to finding a significant correlation between baseline and follow-up values for the primary outcome measure. RANDOMISATION: Remote computerised randomisation with minimisation by recruiting university, small/large practice and urban/rural location. BLINDING: Blinding of participants was impossible given the open cluster design, but self-report outcome measures prevented observer bias. Analysis was blind to allocation. ANALYSIS: Linear mixed models were used, adjusted for baseline depression, baseline anxiety, sociodemographic factors, and clustering including practice as random effect. Quality of life and costs were analysed over 26 weeks. QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS: Practitioner and patient interviews were conducted to reflect on trial processes and use of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 using the Normalization Process Theory framework. RESULTS: Three hundred and two patients were recruited in intervention arm practices and 227 patients were recruited in control practices. Primary outcome data were collected for 252 (83.4%) and 195 (85.9%), respectively. No significant difference in Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, score was found at 12 weeks (adjusted mean difference -0.46, 95% confidence interval -2.16 to 1.26). Nor were significant differences found in Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd Edition, score at 26 weeks, social functioning, patient satisfaction or adverse events. EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, quality-of-life scores favoured the intervention arm at 26 weeks (adjusted mean difference 0.053, 95% confidence interval 0.013 to 0.093). However, quality-adjusted life-years over 26 weeks were not significantly greater (difference 0.0013, 95% confidence interval -0.0157 to 0.0182). Costs were lower in the intervention arm but, again, not significantly (-£163, 95% confidence interval -£349 to £28). Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses, therefore, suggested that the intervention was dominant over usual care, but with considerable uncertainty around the point estimates. Patients valued using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 to compare scores at baseline and follow-up, whereas practitioner views were more mixed, with some considering it too time-consuming. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of improved depression management or outcome at 12 weeks from using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, but patients' quality of life was better at 26 weeks, perhaps because feedback of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores increased their awareness of improvement in their depression and reduced their anxiety. Further research in primary care should evaluate patient-reported outcome measures including anxiety symptoms, administered remotely, with algorithms delivering clear recommendations for changes in treatment. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as IRAS250225 and ISRCTN17299295. FUNDING: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/42/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 17. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.; Depression is common, can be disabling and costs the nation billions. The National Health Service recommends general practitioners who treat people with depression use symptom questionnaires to help assess whether those people are getting better over time. A symptom questionnaire is one type of patient-reported outcome measure. Patient-reported outcome measures appear to benefit people having therapy and mental health care, but this approach has not been tested thoroughly in general practice. Most people with depression are treated in general practice, so it is important to test patient-reported outcome measures there, too. In this study, we tested whether using a patient-reported outcome measure helps people with depression get better more quickly. The study was a ‘randomised controlled trial’ in general practices, split into two groups. In one group, people with depression completed the Patient Health Questionnaire, or ‘PHQ-9’, patient-reported outcome measure, which measures nine symptoms of depression. In the other group, people with depression were treated as usual without the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. We fed the results of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 back to the people with depression themselves to show them how severe their depression was and asked them to discuss the results with the practitioners looking after them. We found no differences between the patient-reported outcome measure group and the control group in their level of depression; their work or social life; their satisfaction with care from their practice; or their use of medicines, therapy or specialist care for depression. However, we did find that their quality of life was improved at 6 months, and the costs of the National Health Service services they used were lower. Using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 can improve patients’ quality of life, perhaps by making them more aware of improvement in their depression symptoms, and less anxious as a result. Future research should test using a patient-reported outcome measure that includes anxiety and processing the answers through a computer to give practitioners clearer advice on possible changes to treatment for depression.; eng