Literature Collection

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine racial-ethnic differences in engagement with and clinical outcomes of a collaborative care model (CoCM) implemented in primary care outpatient clinics in an urban academic medical center. METHODS: Adult patients (N=4,911) who screened positive for symptoms of depression, anxiety, or both on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 or the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 scale and who identified as non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, or non-Hispanic White were offered participation in a CoCM implementation. The primary outcome was treatment engagement, defined as receipt of any follow-up visit, minimally adequate 4-week follow-up (at least one visit), and minimally adequate 16-week follow-up (at least three visits) after initial assessment. Secondary outcomes were response and remission of depression or anxiety. RESULTS: After adjustment of analyses for sociodemographic covariates, Black and Hispanic participants were significantly less likely than White participants to have received any or minimally adequate follow-up. Black and Hispanic participants who received any or minimally adequate 16-week follow-up were more likely than White participants to demonstrate depression symptom response and remission of anxiety symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: This CoCM implementation appears to have been effective in treating depression and anxiety among Black and Hispanic patients. However, significant disparities in receipt of follow-up care were observed. Efforts must be made to improve the retention of patients from racial-ethnic minority groups in collaborative care.

BACKGROUND: Health policy in many countries directs treatment to the lowest effective care level and encourages collaboration between primary and specialist mental health care. A number of models for collaborative care have been developed, and patient benefits are being reported. Less is known about what enables and prevents implementation and sustainability of such models regarding the actions and attitudes of stakeholders on the ground. This article reports from a qualitative sub-study of a cluster-RCT testing a model for collaborative care in Oslo, Norway. The model involved the placement of psychologists and psychiatrists from a community mental health centre in each intervention GP practice. GPs could seek their input or advice when needed and refer patients to them for assessment (including assessment of the need for external services) or treatment. METHODS: We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with GPs (n = 7), CMHC specialists (n = 6) and patients (n = 11) in the intervention arm. Sample specific topic guides were used to investigate the experience of enablers and barriers to the collaborative care model. Data were subject to stepwise deductive-inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants reported positive experiences of how the model improved accessibility. First, co-location made GPs and CMHC specialists accessible to each other and facilitated detailed, patient-centred case collaboration and learning through complementary skills. The threshold for patients' access to specialist care was lowered, treatment could commence early, and throughput increased. Treatment episodes were brief (usually 5-10 sessions) and this was too brief according to some patients. Second, having experienced mental health specialists in the team and on the front line enabled early assessment of symptoms and of the type of treatment and service that patients required and were entitled to, and who could be treated at the GP practice. This improved both care pathways and referral practices. Barriers revolved around the organisation of care. Logistical issues could be tricky but were worked out. The biggest obstacle was the funding of health care at a structural level, which led to economic losses for both the GP practices and the CMHC, making the model unsustainable. CONCLUSIONS: Participants identified a range of benefits of collaborative care for both patients and services. However, the funding system in effect penalises collaborative work. It is difficult to see how policy aiming for successful, sustainable collaboration can be achieved without governments changing funding structures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03624829.