A pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial of an educational intervention for GPs in the assessment and management of depression

Background. General practitioners (GPs) can be provided with effective training in the skills to manage depression. However, it remains uncertain whether such training achieves health gain for their patients. Method. The study aimed to measure the health gain from training GPs in skills for the assessment and management of depression. The study design was a cluster randomized controlled trial. GP participants were assessed for recognition of psychological disorders, attitudes to depression, prescribing patterns and experience of psychiatry and communication skills training. They were then randomized to receive training at baseline or the end of the study. Patients selected by GPs were assessed at baseline, 3 and 12 months. The primary outcome was depression status, measured by HAM-D. Secondary outcomes were psychiatric symptoms (GHQ-12) quality of life (SF-36), satisfaction with consultations, and health service use and costs. Results. Thirty-eight GPs were recruited and 36 (95%) completed the study. They selected 318 patients, of whom 189 (59%) were successfully recruited. At 3 months there were no significant differences between intervention and control patients on HAM-D, GHQ-12 or SF-36. At 12 months there was a positive training effect in two domains of the SF-36, but no differences in HAM-D, GHQ-12 or health care costs. Patients reported trained GPs as somewhat better at listening and understanding but not in the other aspects of satisfaction. Conclusions. Although training programmes may improve GPs' skills in managing depression, this does not appear to translate into health gain for depressed patients or the health service

Psychotherapy mediated by remote communication technologies: a meta-analytic review

Reproduced with permission of the publisher. © 2008 Bee et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-244X/8/60. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Background Access to psychotherapy is limited by psychopathology (e.g. agoraphobia), physical disability, occupational or social constraints and/or residency in under-served areas. For these populations, interventions delivered via remote communication technologies (e.g. telephone, internet) may be more appropriate. However, there are concerns that such delivery may influence the therapeutic relationship and thus reduce therapy effectiveness. This review aimed to determine the clinical effectiveness of remotely communicated, therapist-delivered psychotherapy. Methods Systematic review (including electronic database searching and correspondence with authors) of randomised trials of individual remote psychotherapy. Electronic databases searched included MEDLINE (1966–2006), PsycInfo (1967–2006), EMBASE (1980–2006) and CINAHL databases (1982–2006). The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register (CCDAN-CTR). All searches were conducted to include studies with a publication date to July 2006. Results Thirteen studies were identified, ten assessing psychotherapy by telephone, two by internet and one by videoconference. Pooled effect sizes for remote therapy versus control conditions were 0.44 for depression (95%CI 0.29 to 0.59, 7 comparisons, n = 726) and 1.15 for anxiety-related disorders (95%CI 0.81 to 1.49, 3 comparisons, n = 168). There were few comparisons of remote versus face-to-face psychotherapy. Conclusion Remote therapy has the potential to overcome some of the barriers to conventional psychological therapy services. Telephone-based interventions are a particularly popular research focus and as a means of therapeutic communication may confer specific advantages in terms of their widespread availability and ease of operation. However, the available evidence is limited in quantity and quality. More rigorous trials are required to confirm these preliminary estimates of effectiveness. Future research priorities should include overcoming the methodological shortcomings of published work by conducting large-scale trials that incorporate both clinical outcome and more process-orientated measures

Characteristics of effective collaborative care for treatment of depression: a systematic review and meta-regression of 74 randomised controlled trials

This is a freely-available open access publication. Please cite the published version which is available via the DOI link in this record.BACKGROUND: Collaborative care is a complex intervention based on chronic disease management models and is effective in the management of depression. However, there is still uncertainty about which components of collaborative care are effective. We used meta-regression to identify factors in collaborative care associated with improvement in patient outcomes (depressive symptoms) and the process of care (use of anti-depressant medication). METHODS AND FINDINGS: Systematic review with meta-regression. The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group trials registers were searched from inception to 9th February 2012. An update was run in the CENTRAL trials database on 29th December 2013. Inclusion criteria were: randomised controlled trials of collaborative care for adults ≥18 years with a primary diagnosis of depression or mixed anxiety and depressive disorder. Random effects meta-regression was used to estimate regression coefficients with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between study level covariates and depressive symptoms and relative risk (95% CI) and anti-depressant use. The association between anti-depressant use and improvement in depression was also explored. Seventy four trials were identified (85 comparisons, across 21,345 participants). Collaborative care that included psychological interventions predicted improvement in depression (β coefficient -0.11, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.01, p = 0.03). Systematic identification of patients (relative risk 1.43, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.81, p = 0.004) and the presence of a chronic physical condition (relative risk 1.32, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.65, p = 0.02) predicted use of anti-depressant medication. CONCLUSION: Trials of collaborative care that included psychological treatment, with or without anti-depressant medication, appeared to improve depression more than those without psychological treatment. Trials that used systematic methods to identify patients with depression and also trials that included patients with a chronic physical condition reported improved use of anti-depressant medication. However, these findings are limited by the observational nature of meta-regression, incomplete data reporting, and the use of study aggregates.NIH

Facilitating professional liaison in collaborative care for depression in UK primary care; a qualitative study utilising normalisation process theory

This is a freely-available open access publication. Please cite the published version which is available via the DOI link in this record.Background: Collaborative care (CC) is an organisational framework which facilitates the delivery of a mental health intervention to patients by case managers in collaboration with more senior health professionals (supervisors and GPs), and is effective for the management of depression in primary care. However, there remains limited evidence on how to successfully implement this collaborative approach in UK primary care. This study aimed to explore to what extent CC impacts on professional working relationships, and if CC for depression could be implemented as routine in the primary care setting. Methods: This qualitative study explored perspectives of the 6 case managers (CMs), 5 supervisors (trial research team members) and 15 general practitioners (GPs) from practices participating in a randomised controlled trial of CC for depression. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and data was analysed using a two-step approach using an initial thematic analysis, and a secondary analysis using the Normalisation Process Theory concepts of coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring with respect to the implementation of CC in primary care. Results: Supervisors and CMs demonstrated coherence in their understanding of CC, and consequently reported good levels of cognitive participation and collective action regarding delivering and supervising the intervention. GPs interviewed showed limited understanding of the CC framework, and reported limited collaboration with CMs: barriers to collaboration were identified. All participants identified the potential or experienced benefits of a collaborative approach to depression management and were able to discuss ways in which collaboration can be facilitated. Conclusion: Primary care professionals in this study valued the potential for collaboration, but GPs’ understanding of CC and organisational barriers hindered opportunities for communication. Further work is needed to address these organisational barriers in order to facilitate collaboration around individual patients with depression, including shared IT systems, facilitating opportunities for informal discussion and building in formal collaboration into the CC framework. Trial registration: ISRCTN32829227 30/9/2008.UK Medical Research CouncilNIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health ResearchCare South West Peninsul

From theory to 'measurement' in complex interventions: methodological lessons from the development of an e-health normalisation instrument

<b>Background</b> Although empirical and theoretical understanding of processes of implementation in health care is advancing, translation of theory into structured measures that capture the complex interplay between interventions, individuals and context remain limited. This paper aimed to (1) describe the process and outcome of a project to develop a theory-based instrument for measuring implementation processes relating to e-health interventions; and (2) identify key issues and methodological challenges for advancing work in this field.<p></p> <b>Methods</b> A 30-item instrument (Technology Adoption Readiness Scale (TARS)) for measuring normalisation processes in the context of e-health service interventions was developed on the basis on Normalization Process Theory (NPT). NPT focuses on how new practices become routinely embedded within social contexts. The instrument was pre-tested in two health care settings in which e-health (electronic facilitation of healthcare decision-making and practice) was used by health care professionals.<p></p> <b>Results</b> The developed instrument was pre-tested in two professional samples (N = 46; N = 231). Ratings of items representing normalisation 'processes' were significantly related to staff members' perceptions of whether or not e-health had become 'routine'. Key methodological challenges are discussed in relation to: translating multi-component theoretical constructs into simple questions; developing and choosing appropriate outcome measures; conducting multiple-stakeholder assessments; instrument and question framing; and more general issues for instrument development in practice contexts.<p></p> <b>Conclusions</b> To develop theory-derived measures of implementation process for progressing research in this field, four key recommendations are made relating to (1) greater attention to underlying theoretical assumptions and extent of translation work required; (2) the need for appropriate but flexible approaches to outcomes measurement; (3) representation of multiple perspectives and collaborative nature of work; and (4) emphasis on generic measurement approaches that can be flexibly tailored to particular contexts of study

Why is it difficult to implement e-health initiatives? A qualitative study

<b>Background</b> The use of information and communication technologies in healthcare is seen as essential for high quality and cost-effective healthcare. However, implementation of e-health initiatives has often been problematic, with many failing to demonstrate predicted benefits. This study aimed to explore and understand the experiences of implementers - the senior managers and other staff charged with implementing e-health initiatives and their assessment of factors which promote or inhibit the successful implementation, embedding, and integration of e-health initiatives.<p></p> <b>Methods</b> We used a case study methodology, using semi-structured interviews with implementers for data collection. Case studies were selected to provide a range of healthcare contexts (primary, secondary, community care), e-health initiatives, and degrees of normalization. The initiatives studied were Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) in secondary care, a Community Nurse Information System (CNIS) in community care, and Choose and Book (C&B) across the primary-secondary care interface. Implementers were selected to provide a range of seniority, including chief executive officers, middle managers, and staff with 'on the ground' experience. Interview data were analyzed using a framework derived from Normalization Process Theory (NPT).<p></p> <b>Results</b> Twenty-three interviews were completed across the three case studies. There were wide differences in experiences of implementation and embedding across these case studies; these differences were well explained by collective action components of NPT. New technology was most likely to 'normalize' where implementers perceived that it had a positive impact on interactions between professionals and patients and between different professional groups, and fit well with the organisational goals and skill sets of existing staff. However, where implementers perceived problems in one or more of these areas, they also perceived a lower level of normalization.<p></p> <b>Conclusions</b> Implementers had rich understandings of barriers and facilitators to successful implementation of e-health initiatives, and their views should continue to be sought in future research. NPT can be used to explain observed variations in implementation processes, and may be useful in drawing planners' attention to potential problems with a view to addressing them during implementation planning

Collaborative care for depression in UK primary care: a randomized controlled trial

Reproduced with permission of the publisher. © 2008 Cambridge University Press.Background. 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. Method. We undertook a Phase II patient-level randomized controlled trial in primary care, nested within a clusterrandomized 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). Results. 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). Conclusions. 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 Interventions for Circulation and Depression (COINCIDE): study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial of collaborative care for depression in people with diabetes and/or coronary heart disease.

Published onlineJournal ArticleRandomized Controlled TrialResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tBACKGROUND: Depression is up to two to three times as common in people with long-term conditions. It negatively affects medical management of disease and self-care behaviors, and leads to poorer quality of life and high costs in primary care. Screening and treatment of depression is increasingly prioritized, but despite initiatives to improve access and quality of care, depression remains under-detected and under-treated, especially in people with long-term conditions. Collaborative care is known to positively affect the process and outcome of care for people with depression and long-term conditions, but its effectiveness outside the USA is still relatively unknown. Furthermore, collaborative care has yet to be tested in settings that resemble more naturalistic settings that include patient choice and the usual care providers. The aim of this study was to test the effectiveness of a collaborative-care intervention, for people with depression and diabetes/coronary heart disease in National Health Service (NHS) primary care, in which low-intensity psychological treatment services are delivered by the usual care provider - Increasing Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services. The study also aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the intervention over 6 months, and to assess qualitatively the extent to which collaborative care was implemented in the intervention general practices. METHODS: This is a cluster randomized controlled trial of 30 general practices allocated to either collaborative care or usual care. Fifteen patients per practice will be recruited after a screening exercise to detect patients with recognized depression (≥10 on the nine-symptom Patient Health Questionnaire; PHQ-9). Patients in the collaborative-care arm with recognized depression will be offered a choice of evidence-based low-intensity psychological treatments based on cognitive and behavioral approaches. Patients will be case managed by psychological well-being practitioners employed by IAPT in partnership with a practice nurse and/or general practitioner. The primary outcome will be change in depressive symptoms at 6 months on the 90-item Symptoms Checklist (SCL-90). Secondary outcomes include change in health status, self-care behaviors, and self-efficacy. A qualitative process evaluation will be undertaken with patients and health practitioners to gauge the extent to which the collaborative-care model is implemented, and to explore sustainability beyond the clinical trial. DISCUSSION: COINCIDE will assess whether collaborative care can improve patient-centered outcomes, and evaluate access to and quality of care of co-morbid depression of varying intensity in people with diabetes/coronary heart disease. Additionally, by working with usual care providers such as IAPT, and by identifying and evaluating interventions that are effective and appropriate for routine use in the NHS, the COINCIDE trial offers opportunities to address translational gaps between research and implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN80309252 TRIAL STATUS: Open.NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for Greater Mancheste

Integrated primary care for patients with mental and physical multimorbidity: cluster randomised controlled trial of collaborative care for patients with depression comorbid with diabetes or cardiovascular disease

PublishedOpen Access ArticleObjective To test the effectiveness of an integrated collaborative care model for people with depression and long term physical conditions. Design Cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting 36 general practices in the north west of England. Participants 387 patients with a record of diabetes or heart disease, or both, who had depressive symptoms (≥10 on patient health questionaire-9 (PHQ-9)) for at least two weeks. Mean age was 58.5 (SD 11.7). Participants reported a mean of 6.2 (SD 3.0) long term conditions other than diabetes or heart disease; 240 (62%) were men; 360 (90%) completed the trial. Interventions Collaborative care included patient preference for behavioural activation, cognitive restructuring, graded exposure, and/or lifestyle advice, management of drug treatment, and prevention of relapse. Up to eight sessions of psychological treatment were delivered by specially trained psychological wellbeing practitioners employed by Improving Access to Psychological Therapy services in the English National Health Service; integration of care was enhanced by two treatment sessions delivered jointly with the practice nurse. Usual care was standard clinical practice provided by general practitioners and practice nurses. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was reduction in symptoms of depression on the self reported symptom checklist-13 depression scale (SCL-D13) at four months after baseline assessment. Secondary outcomes included anxiety symptoms (generalised anxiety disorder 7), self management (health education impact questionnaire), disability (Sheehan disability scale), and global quality of life (WHOQOL-BREF). Results 19 general practices were randomised to collaborative care and 20 to usual care; three practices withdrew from the trial before patients were recruited. 191 patients were recruited from practices allocated to collaborative care, and 196 from practices allocated to usual care. After adjustment for baseline depression score, mean depressive scores were 0.23 SCL-D13 points lower (95% confidence interval −0.41 to −0.05) in the collaborative care arm, equal to an adjusted standardised effect size of 0.30. Patients in the intervention arm also reported being better self managers, rated their care as more patient centred, and were more satisfied with their care. There were no significant differences between groups in quality of life, disease specific quality of life, self efficacy, disability, and social support. Conclusions Collaborative care that incorporates brief low intensity psychological therapy delivered in partnership with practice nurses in primary care can reduce depression and improve self management of chronic disease in people with mental and physical multimorbidity. The size of the treatment effects were modest and were less than the prespecified effect but were achieved in a trial run in routine settings with a deprived population with high levels of mental and physical multimorbidity. Trial registration ISRCTN80309252.National Institute for Health ResearchCollaboration for Leadership in Applied Health ResearchCare for Greater Mancheste

Update on the collaborative interventions for circulation and depression (COINCIDE) trial: changes to planned methodology of a cluster randomized controlled trial of collaborative care for depression in people with diabetes and/or coronary heart disease.

Published onlineJournal ArticleRandomized Controlled TrialResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tBACKGROUND: The COINCIDE trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a collaborative care intervention for depression in people with diabetes and/or coronary heart disease attending English general practices. DESIGN: This update details changes to the cluster and patient recruitment strategy for the COINCIDE study. The original protocol was published in Trials (http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/pdf/1745-6215-13-139.pdf). Modifications were made to the recruitment targets in response to lower-than-expected patient recruitment at the first ten general practices recruited into the study. In order to boost patient numbers and retain statistical power, the number of general practices recruited was increased from 30 to 36. Follow-up period was shortened from 6 months to 4 months to ensure that patients recruited to the trial could be followed up by the end of the study. RESULTS: Patient recruitment began on the 01/05/2012 and is planned to be completed by the 30/04/2013. Recruitment for general practices was completed on 31/10/2012, by which time the target of 36 practices had been recruited. The main trial results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. CONCLUSION: The data from the trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for depression in people with diabetes and/or coronary heart disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN80309252.NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for Greater Mancheste