Helen J Lewis

Effect of Collaborative Care vs Usual Care on Depressive Symptoms in Older Adults With Subthreshold Depression: The CASPER Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance There is little evidence to guide management of depressive symptoms in older people. Objective To evaluate whether a collaborative care intervention can reduce depressive symptoms and prevent more severe depression in older people. Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized clinical trial conducted from May 24, 2011, to November 14, 2014, in 32 primary care centers in the United Kingdom among 705 participants aged 65 years or older with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) subthreshold depression; participants were followed up for 12 months. Interventions Collaborative care (n=344) was coordinated by a case manager who assessed functional impairments relating to mood symptoms. Participants were offered behavioral activation and completed an average of 6 weekly sessions. The control group received usual primary care (n=361). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was self-reported depression severity at 4-month follow-up on the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9; score range, 0-27). Included among 10 prespecified secondary outcomes were the PHQ-9 score at 12-month follow-up and the proportion meeting criteria for depressive disorder (PHQ-9 score ≥10) at 4- and 12-month follow-up. Results The 705 participants were 58% female with a mean age of 77 (SD, 7.1) years. Four-month retention was 83%, with higher loss to follow-up in collaborative care (82/344 [24%]) vs usual care (37/361 [10%]). Collaborative care resulted in lower PHQ-9 scores vs usual care at 4-month follow-up (mean score with collaborative care, 5.36 vs with usual care, 6.67; mean difference, −1.31; 95% CI, −1.95 to −0.67; P < .001). Treatment differences remained at 12 months (mean PHQ-9 score with collaborative care, 5.93 vs with usual care, 7.25; mean difference, −1.33; 95% CI, −2.10 to −0.55). The proportions of participants meeting criteria for depression at 4-month follow-up were 17.2% (45/262) vs 23.5% (76/324), respectively (difference, −6.3% [95% CI, −12.8% to 0.2%]; relative risk, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.61-1.27]; P = .25) and at 12-month follow-up were 15.7% (37/235) vs 27.8% (79/284) (difference, −12.1% [95% CI, −19.1% to −5.1%]; relative risk, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.46-0.91]; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance Among older adults with subthreshold depression, collaborative care compared with usual care resulted in a statistically significant difference in depressive symptoms at 4-month follow-up, of uncertain clinical importance. Although differences persisted through 12 months, findings are limited by attrition, and further research is needed to assess longer-term efficacy. Trial Registration isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN02202951

The Effectiveness of Pharmacological and Non-Pharmacological Interventions for Improving Glycaemic Control in Adults with Severe Mental Illness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

People with severe mental illness (SMI) have reduced life expectancy compared with the general population, which can be explained partly by their increased risk of diabetes. We conducted a meta-analysis to determine the clinical effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for improving glycaemic control in people with SMI (PROSPERO registration: CRD42015015558). A systematic literature search was performed on 30/10/2015 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with SMI, with or without a diagnosis of diabetes that measured fasting blood glucose or glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). Screening and data extraction were carried out independently by two reviewers. We used random effects meta-analysis to estimate effectiveness, and subgroup analysis and univariate meta-regression to explore heterogeneity. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool was used to assess risk of bias. We found 54 eligible RCTs in 4,392 adults (40 pharmacological, 13 behavioural, one mixed intervention). Data for meta-analysis were available from 48 RCTs (n = 4052). Both pharmacological (mean difference (MD), -0.11mmol/L; 95% confidence interval (CI), [-0.19, -0.02], p = 0.02, n = 2536) and behavioural interventions (MD, -0.28mmol//L; 95% CI, [-0.43, -0.12], p<0.001, n = 956) were effective in lowering fasting glucose, but not HbA1c (pharmacological MD, -0.03%; 95% CI, [-0.12, 0.06], p = 0.52, n = 1515; behavioural MD, 0.18%; 95% CI, [-0.07, 0.42], p = 0.16, n = 140) compared with usual care or placebo. In subgroup analysis of pharmacological interventions, metformin and antipsychotic switching strategies improved HbA1c. Behavioural interventions of longer duration and those including repeated physical activity had greater effects on fasting glucose than those without these characteristics. Baseline levels of fasting glucose explained some of the heterogeneity in behavioural interventions but not in pharmacological interventions. Although the strength of the evidence is limited by inadequate trial design and reporting and significant heterogeneity, there is some evidence that behavioural interventions, antipsychotic switching, and metformin can lead to clinically important improvements in glycaemic measurements in adults with SMI.

Needles, Jabs and Jags: a qualitative exploration of barriers and facilitators to child and adult immunisation uptake among Gypsies, Travellers and Roma

BackgroundGypsies, Travellers and Roma (referred to as Travellers) are less likely to access health services including immunisation. To improve immunisation rates, it is necessary to understand what helps and hinders individuals in these communities in taking up immunisations. This study had two aims.1.Investigate the views of Travellers in the UK on the barriers and facilitators to acceptability and uptake of immunisations and explore their ideas for improving immunisation uptake;2.Examine whether and how these responses vary across and within communities, and for different vaccines (childhood and adult).MethodsThis was a qualitative, cross-sectional interview study informed by the Social Ecological Model. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 174 Travellers from six communities: Romanian Roma, English Gypsy/Irish Travellers (Bristol), English Gypsy (York), Romanian/Slovakian Roma, Scottish Show people (Glasgow) and Irish Traveller (London). The focus was childhood and selected adult vaccines. Data were analysed using the Framework approach.ResultsCommon accounts of barriers and facilitators were identified across all six Traveller communities, similar to those documented for the general population. All Roma communities experienced additional barriers of language and being in a new country. Men and women described similar barriers and facilitators although women spoke more of discrimination and low literacy. There was broad acceptance of childhood and adult immunisation across and within communities, with current parents perceived as more positive than their elders. A minority of English-speaking Travellers worried about multiple/combined childhood vaccines, adult flu and whooping cough and described barriers to booking and attending immunisation. Cultural concerns about antenatal vaccines and HPV vaccination were most evident in the Bristol English Gypsy/Irish Traveller community. Language, literacy, discrimination, poor school attendance, poverty and housing were identified as barriers across different communities. Trustful relationships with health professionals were important and continuity of care valued.ConclusionsThe experience of many Travellers in this study, and the context through which they make health decisions, is changing. This large study identified key issues that should be considered when taking action to improve uptake of immunisations in Traveller families and reduce the persistent inequalities in coverage.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN20019630.

Life adversity in depressed and non-depressed older adults: A cross-sectional comparison of the brief LTE-Q questionnaire and life events and difficulties interview as part of the CASPER study

BACKGROUND There is a paucity of research on the nature of life adversity in depressed and non-depressed older adults. Early life events work used in-depth interviews; however, larger epidemiological trials investigate life adversity using brief questionnaires. This study investigates the type of life adversity experienced in later life and its association with depression and compares adversity captured using a brief (LTE-Q) and in-depth (LEDS) measure. METHODS 960 participants over 65 years were recruited in UK primary care to complete the PHQ-9 and LTE-Q. A sub-sample (n=19) completed the LEDS and a question exploring the subjective experience of the LTE-Q and LEDS. RESULTS Important life adversity was reported on the LTE-Q in 48% of the sample. In the LTE-Q sample the prevalence of depression (PHQ-9≥10) was 12%. Exposure to recent adversity was associated with doubling of the odds of depression. The LTE-Q only captured a proportion of adversity measured by the LEDS (42% vs 84%). Both measures showed health, bereavement and relationship events were most common. LIMITATIONS The cross-sectional design limits the extent to which inferences can be drawn around the direction of causality between adversity and depression. Recall in older adults is questionable. CONCLUSIONS UK older adults face adversity in areas of health, bereavement and relationships which are associated with depression. This has clinical relevance for psychological interventions for older adults to consider social context and social support. It helps identify the strengths and weaknesses of a brief adversity measure in large scale research. Further research is needed to explore the mechanisms of onset and direction of causality.

UNderstanding uptake of Immunisations in TravellIng aNd Gypsy communities (UNITING): protocol for an exploratory, qualitative study

Introduction Gypsies, Travellers and Roma (referred to here as Travellers) experience significantly poorer health and have shorter life expectancy than the general population. They are also less likely to access health services including immunisation. To improve immunisation rates, we need to understand what helps and hinders individuals in these communities in taking up immunisations. This study has two aims: (1) Investigate the barriers and facilitators to acceptability and uptake of immunisations among six Traveller communities in the UK; (2) Identify potential interventions to increase uptake in these Traveller communities. Methods and analysis A three-phase qualitative study with six Traveller communities. PHASE 1: In each community, we will explore up to 45 Travellers’ views about the influences on their immunisation behaviours and ideas for improving uptake in their community. PHASE 2: In each community, we will investigate 6–8 service providers’ perspectives on barriers and facilitators to childhood and adult immunisations for Traveller communities with whom they work, and ideas to improve uptake. Interview data will be analysed using the Framework approach. PHASE 3: The findings will be discussed and interventions prioritised in six workshops, each with 10–12 phase 1 and 3–4 phase 2 participants. Ethics and dissemination This research received approval from NRES Committee Yorkshire and The Humber-Leeds East (Ref. 13/YH/02). It will produce (1) findings on the barriers and facilitators to uptake of immunisations in six Traveller communities; (2) a prioritised list of potentially feasible and acceptable interventions for increasing uptake in these communities; and (3) methodological development in undertaking research with diverse Traveller communities. The study has the potential to inform new ways of delivering services to ensure high immunisation uptake. Findings will be disseminated to participants, relevant UK organisations with responsibility for the implementation of immunisation policy and Traveller health/welfare; and submitted for publication in academic journals. Trial registration number ISRCTN20019630.

Diagnostic accuracy of the Whooley depression tool in older adults in UK primary care

PURPOSE OF RESEARCH To validate the Whooley questions as a screening tool for depression amongst a population of older adults in UK primary care. OBJECTIVE To assess the diagnostic performance of the Whooley questions as a screening tool for depression amongst older adults in UK primary care. PARTICIPANTS A cross-sectional validation study was conducted with 766 patients aged ≥75 from UK primary care, recruited via 17 general practices based in the North of England during the pilot phase of a randomized controlled trial. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios comparing the index test (two Whooley questions) with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD) ascertained by the reference standard Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI). RESULTS The two screening questions had a sensitivity of 94.3% (95% confidence interval, 80.8-99.3%) and specificity of 62.7% (95% confidence interval, 59.0-66.2%). The likelihood ratio for a positive test was 2.5 (95% confidence interval, 2.2-2.9) and the likelihood ratio for a negative test was 0.09 (95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.35). CONCLUSION The two Whooley questions missed few cases of depression. However, they were responsible for a high rate of false positives. This creates additional burden on general practitioners, to conduct more detailed investigation on patients who screen positive, but many of whom turn out not to have MDD.

An randomized controlled trial of Post-it® notes did not increase postal response rates in older depressed participants.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of a Post-it® note to increase response rates and shorten response times to a 4-month postal follow-up questionnaire sent to participants taking part in the Collaborative Care in Screen-Positive Elders (CASPER) trials. METHOD Our trial was a two-arm randomized controlled trial comparing response rates to questionnaires with a printed Post-it® note (intervention) and without (control), nested in multi centred randomized controlled trials of older people with varying levels of depressive symptoms; the CASPER+ and CASPER Self Help for those At Risk of Depression (SHARD) trials. A total of 611 participants were eligible and randomized. The primary outcome was response rates, secondary outcomes were time to response and need for a reminder. RESULTS Of 297 participants, 266 (89.6%) returned their 4-month questionnaire in the post-it note arm, compared with 282 of 314 participants (89.8%) in the control arm (OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.57, 1.65, P = 0.913). There were no statistically significant differences in time to respond or the need to be sent a reminder. Patients with a major depressive episode were more likely to return questionnaires with post-it notes (P of interaction = .019). CONCLUSION There was no significant difference in response rates, time to response, or the need for a reminder between the intervention and control at 4-month follow up for older people with depressive symptoms. However, there was a significant interaction between the Post-it® note group and level of depression.

How should we implement collaborative care for older people with depression? A qualitative study using normalisation process theory within the CASPER plus trial

BackgroundDepression in older people may have a prevalence as high as 20%, and is associated with physical co-morbidities, loss, and loneliness. It is associated with poorer health outcomes and reduced quality of life, and is under-diagnosed and under-treated. Older people may find it difficult to speak to their GPs about low mood, and GPs may avoid identifying depression due to limited consultation time and referral options for older patients.MethodsA qualitative study nested within a randomised controlled trial for older people with moderate to severe depression: the CASPER plus Trial (Care for Screen Positive Elders). We interviewed patient participants, GPs, and case managers (CM) to explore patients’ and professionals’ views on collaborative care developed for older people, and how this model could be implemented at scale. Transcripts were analysed thematically using normalization process theory.ResultsThirty-three interviews were conducted. Across the three data-sets, four main themes were identified based on the main principles of the Normalization Process Theory: understanding of collaborative care, interaction between patients and professionals, liaison between GPs and case managers, and the potential for implementation.ConclusionsA telephone-delivered intervention, incorporating behavioural activation, is acceptable to older people with depression, and is deliverable by case managers. The collaborative care framework makes sense to case managers and has the potential to optimize patient outcomes, but implementation requires integration in day to day general practice. Increasing GPs’ understanding of collaborative care might improve liaison and collaboration with case managers, and facilitate the intervention through better support of patients. The CASPER plus model, delivering therapy to older adults with depression by telephone, offers the potential for implementation in a resource-poor health service.

P15 Improving diabetes outcomes in severe mental illness: A systematic review and meta-analysis of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions

Background People diagnosed with schizophrenia and other severe mental illness (SMI) have a reduced life expectancy compared to the general population, which can partly be explained by their increased risk of diabetes and associated poor diabetes management. A growing number of interventions are targeting this patient group to reduce physical health inequalities and improve life expectancy, which is around 20 years shorter compared to the general population. Several systematic reviews have investigated the effectiveness of interventions for managing body weight and other anthropometric markers. Less is known about their effectiveness for improving diabetes outcomes, or the quality of evidence focusing on this co-morbidity. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for improving diabetes outcomes in adults with SMI. Methods We searched key databases from inception to October 2015 to identify randomised controlled trials measuring the effects of interventions for improving diabetes outcomes. The primary outcome was blood glucose control measured using HbA1c or fasting blood glucose. Trials which measured one of these outcomes and included adults with SMI, with or without diabetes, were included. Screening and data extraction were carried out independently by two researchers. A meta-analysis and narrative synthesis were performed to investigate the effects and components of different interventions. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for critical appraisal. For non-pharmacological interventions, which targeted behaviour change, we also coded the behaviour change techniques (e.g. goal setting, rewards) employed. Results We included 53 studies, comprising 39 pharmacological (intervention n = 1497, control n = 1346), 13 non-pharmacological (intervention n = 661, control n = 641), and one mixed intervention (intervention n = 96, control n = 32). Studies included lifestyle and other behavioural interventions, metformin, anti-psychotic switching, and a range of adjunctive pharmacological therapies to existing anti-psychotic medications. Many studies included small sample sizes and targeted different sub-groups of the population; for example inclusion criteria commonly set limits regarding body weight, medications, and presence of diabetes and other co-morbidities. Compared to usual care, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions showed a small clinical improvement in both HbA1c and fasting glucose levels in people with SMI; however, there was considerably heterogeneity between studies, and few conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes for people with co-existing SMI and diabetes, due to poor reporting of sample characteristics and study findings.

G325(P) Understanding uptake of immunisations in travelling and gypsy communities

Aims To investigate the barriers and facilitators to acceptability and uptake of immunisation among Gypsy/Traveller communities in the UK. Methods We interviewed 174 Gypsy/Travellers from five communities: Romanian/Slovakian Roma, English Gypsy, Irish Travellers, English Roma, Scottish Showpeople, in four UK cities: Interviews gathered views about the influences on their immunisation behaviours (childhood, adult flu and pertussis vaccines) and ideas for improving uptake in their community. Interview data were analysed using the framework approach. The Social Ecological Model provided the theoretical framework. Results General acceptance of immunisation based on social norms and trust in health professionals was expressed by approximately half of the participants from the English Roma and London Irish Traveller communities in two cities; three quarters of the English Gypsy/Irish Traveller community and Scottish Showpeople; and almost all of the Romanian/Slovakian Roma participants. Concerns about specific vaccines were evident for particular communities e.g. pertussis vaccine in pregnancy for the English/Irish Traveller community in one city, MMR for the Scottish Showpeople. A belief that having the HPV vaccination would imply that Traveller girls are promiscuous was evident for a minority of Travellers in four communities (not Scottish Showpeople). Romanian/Slovakian Roma communities identified language barriers to accessing immunisation services and low literacy across all communities resulted in people being unable to read immunisation leaflets or letters/texts about appointments and struggling to make sense of conversations with health professionals. Relationships with health professionals appeared to be very important. Recall and reminder systems (letters, texts, phone calls) were seen as effective for the majority of participants including those who regularly travel. Most did not appear to have problems with attending appointments for immunisations although some talked about the difficulty of registering with a GP practice without a fixed address and being unable to get an appointment within two weeks. Conclusion Although these Travellers’ accounts of the barriers and facilitators to immunisation have consistency with the wider population, there are some important differences between communities. Immunisation services need to be aware of Gypsy/Traveller communities in their area and tailor services accordingly.