Comparative Effectiveness of Two Models of Depression Services Quality Improvement in Health and Community Sectors.

OBJECTIVE The effectiveness of community coalition building and program technical assistance was compared in implementation of collaborative care for depression among health care and community sector clients. METHODS In under-resourced communities, within 93 programs randomly assigned to coalition building (Community Engagement and Planning) or program technical assistance (Resources for Services) models, 1,018 clients completed surveys at baseline and at six, 12, or 36 months. Regression analysis was used to estimate intervention effects and intervention-by-sector interaction effects on depression, mental health-related quality of life, and community-prioritized outcomes and on services use. RESULTS For outcomes, there were few significant intervention-by-sector interactions, and stratified findings suggested benefits of coalition building in both sectors. For services use, at 36 months, increases were found for coalition building in primary care visits, self-help visits, and appropriate treatment for community clients and in community-based services use for health care clients. CONCLUSIONS Relative to program technical assistance, community coalition building benefited clients across sectors and shifted long-term utilization across sectors.

[1]  C. Sherbourne,et al.  A Community-Partnered, Participatory, Cluster-Randomized Study of Depression Care Quality Improvement: Three-Year Outcomes. , 2017, Psychiatric services.

[2]  Laurie M. Anderson,et al.  Community coalition-driven interventions to reduce health disparities among racial and ethnic minority populations. , 2015, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[3]  C. Sherbourne,et al.  12-Month Outcomes of Community Engagement Versus Technical Assistance to Implement Depression Collaborative Care , 2014, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[4]  Melissa Cohen,et al.  The Pioneer accountable care organization model: improving quality and lowering costs. , 2014, JAMA.

[5]  T. Strine,et al.  The PHQ-8 as a measure of current depression in the general population. , 2009, Journal of affective disorders.

[6]  David R. Williams,et al.  Mental health in the context of health disparities. , 2008, The American journal of psychiatry.

[7]  Alex J Sutton,et al.  Collaborative care for depression: a cumulative meta-analysis and review of longer-term outcomes. , 2006, Archives of internal medicine.

[8]  Olga V. Demler,et al.  Prevalence, severity, and comorbidity of 12-month DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. , 2005, Archives of general psychiatry.

[9]  Juned Siddique,et al.  Treating depression in predominantly low-income young minority women: a randomized controlled trial. , 2003, JAMA.

[10]  Mark T Hegel,et al.  Collaborative care management of late-life depression in the primary care setting: a randomized controlled trial. , 2002, JAMA.

[11]  C. Sherbourne,et al.  Impact of disseminating quality improvement programs for depression in managed primary care: a randomized controlled trial. , 2000, JAMA.

[12]  P W Lavori,et al.  A multiple imputation strategy for clinical trials with truncation of patient data. , 1995, Statistics in medicine.

[13]  C. Sherbourne,et al.  The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) , 1992 .

[14]  C. Sherbourne,et al.  Erratum to: Community-Partnered Cluster-Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Community Engagement and Planning or Resources for Services to Address Depression Disparities , 2013, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[15]  D. Sheehan,et al.  The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.): the development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. , 1998, The Journal of clinical psychiatry.