Janine Archer

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

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.

Nurse-delivered collaborative care for depression and long-term physical conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Depression will be the second largest cause of disease burden by 2020. It is commonly associated with long term physical health conditions resulting in worsened clinical outcome and increased costs. Nurses would appear ideally placed to facilitate depression management in those people with long term health problems within health care clinics. This article reviews the evidence to support such a clinical approach. METHOD A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials of nurse led management of depression in patients with long term health problems. Databases were searched between December 2011 and May 2012, data were extracted and analysed using Comprehensive Meta Analysis software. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were used to explore the impact of study level moderators of effect. RESULTS Nurse delivered collaborative care was compared to usual care in 14 studies including 4440 participants. The mean effect size at follow-up was d=0.43 95% CI 0.34 to 0.52 p<0.001 NNT 4.23, representing a moderate impact on depression severity. Results were consistent across studies and maintained at longer term follow up. LIMITATIONS Data were only available on depression outcomes and with most studies being USA based generalizability is somewhat limited. To date only one study reported cost effectiveness outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Based upon the research literature nurse led depression management provides effective treatment across a range of long term health conditions. Nurses are ideally placed to deliver such interventions and further research is required to examine the cost utility of the approach and its durability outside of the USA.

Association Between Chronic Physical Conditions and the Effectiveness of Collaborative Care for Depression: An Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE Collaborative care is an intensive care model involving several health care professionals working together, typically a physician, a case manager, and a mental health professional. Meta-analyses of aggregate data have shown that collaborative care is particularly effective in people with depression and comorbid chronic physical conditions. However, only participant-level analyses can rigorously test whether the treatment effect is influenced by participant characteristics, such as chronic physical conditions. OBJECTIVE To assess whether the effectiveness of collaborative care for depression is moderated by the presence, type, and number of chronic physical conditions. DATA SOURCES Data were obtained from MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL Complete, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and references from relevant systematic reviews. The search and collection of eligible studies was ongoing until May 22, 2015. STUDY SELECTION This was an update to a previous meta-analysis. Two independent reviewers were involved in the study selection process. Randomized clinical trials that compared the effectiveness of collaborative care with usual care in adults with depression and reported measured changes in depression severity symptoms at 4 to 6 months after randomization were included in the analysis. Key search terms included depression, dysthymia, anxiety, panic, phobia, obsession, compulsion, posttraumatic, care management, case management, collaborative care, enhanced care, and managed care. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Individual participant data on baseline demographics and chronic physical conditions as well as baseline and follow-up depression severity symptoms were requested from authors of the eligible studies. One-step meta-analysis of individual participant data using appropriate mixed-effects models was performed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Continuous outcomes of depression severity symptoms measured using self-reported or observer-rated measures. RESULTS Data sets from 31 randomized clinical trials including 36 independent comparisons (N = 10 962 participants) were analyzed. Individual participant data analyses found no significant interaction effects, indicating that the presence (interaction coefficient, 0.02 [95% CI, -0.10 to 0.13]), numbers (interaction coefficient, 0.01 [95% CI, -0.01 to 0.02]), and types of chronic physical conditions do not influence the treatment effect. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE There is evidence that collaborative care is effective for people with depression alone and also for people with depression and chronic physical conditions. Existing guidance that recommends limiting collaborative care to people with depression and physical comorbidities is not supported by this individual participant data meta-analysis.

Collaborative care for depression and anxiety problems in primary care

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: This review aims to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of collaborative care for depression and anxiety in primary care settings. 1 Collaborative care for depression and anxiety problems in primary care (Protocol) Copyright

Association Between Chronic Physical Conditions and the Effectiveness of Collaborative Care for Depression

IMPORTANCE Collaborative care is an intensive care model involving several health care professionals working together, typically a physician, a case manager, and a mental health professional. Meta-analyses of aggregate data have shown that collaborative care is particularly effective in people with depression and comorbid chronic physical conditions. However, only participant-level analyses can rigorously test whether the treatment effect is influenced by participant characteristics, such as chronic physical conditions. OBJECTIVE To assess whether the effectiveness of collaborative care for depression is moderated by the presence, type, and number of chronic physical conditions. DATA SOURCES Data were obtained from MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL Complete, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and references from relevant systematic reviews. The search and collection of eligible studies was ongoing until May 22, 2015. STUDY SELECTION This was an update to a previous meta-analysis. Two independent reviewers were involved in the study selection process. Randomized clinical trials that compared the effectiveness of collaborative care with usual care in adults with depression and reported measured changes in depression severity symptoms at 4 to 6 months after randomization were included in the analysis. Key search terms included depression, dysthymia, anxiety, panic, phobia, obsession, compulsion, posttraumatic, care management, case management, collaborative care, enhanced care, and managed care. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Individual participant data on baseline demographics and chronic physical conditions as well as baseline and follow-up depression severity symptoms were requested from authors of the eligible studies. One-step meta-analysis of individual participant data using appropriate mixed-effects models was performed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Continuous outcomes of depression severity symptoms measured using self-reported or observer-rated measures. RESULTS Data sets from 31 randomized clinical trials including 36 independent comparisons (N = 10 962 participants) were analyzed. Individual participant data analyses found no significant interaction effects, indicating that the presence (interaction coefficient, 0.02 [95% CI, -0.10 to 0.13]), numbers (interaction coefficient, 0.01 [95% CI, -0.01 to 0.02]), and types of chronic physical conditions do not influence the treatment effect. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE There is evidence that collaborative care is effective for people with depression alone and also for people with depression and chronic physical conditions. Existing guidance that recommends limiting collaborative care to people with depression and physical comorbidities is not supported by this individual participant data meta-analysis.

Does collaborative care improve social functioning in adults with depression? The application of the WHO ICF framework and meta-analysis of outcomes.

BACKGROUND Collaborative care has proven efficacy in improving symptoms of depression, yet patients value improvements in their social function also. We used the World Health Organisations International classification of functioning, disability, and health (WHO ICF) to robustly identify measures of social function and explored whether collaborative care interventions improve social functioning using meta-analysis. METHODS We performed a secondary data analysis on studies identified from our previous Cochrane review of collaborative care interventions for depression and search update (December 2013). The WHO ICF framework was applied to identify studies that included self-report measures of social functioning. Outcomes were extracted at short-term (6 months) and medium-term (≥7 months) and analysed using random-effects meta-analysis. The relationship between improvements in depression outcomes and improvements in social functioning was also explored using bivarable meta-regression. RESULTS Eighteen trials were identified that measured social functioning and met our remaining inclusion criteria. Collaborative care was associated with small improvements in social functioning in the short (Standardised Mean Difference, SMD=0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.12 to 0.34) and medium term (SMD=0.19, 95% confidence interval 0.09 to 0.29). Improvements in depressive symptoms were associated with moderate improvements in social function (ß=-0.55, 95% confidence interval -0.82 to -0.28) but cross-sectionally only. LIMITATIONS The small number of studies (N=18) prevented more complex analyses to explore moderators of social functioning outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Collaborative care improves social functioning but the mechanisms through which this occurs are unknown. Future depression interventions need to consider a persons degree of social function equally alongside their depressive symptoms.

Collaborative care improves clinical outcomes for adolescents with depression treated in primary care

Commentary on : Richardson LP, Ludman E, McCauley E, et al. Collaborative care for adolescents with depression in primary care: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2014;312:809–16.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Depression in adolescence is common worldwide and although it is treatable, only a minority receive evidence-based interventions.1 ,2 A recent report by the WHO identifies depression as the leading cause of illness and disability in adolescents and highlights the importance of a coordinated approach to care.3 A Cochrane review has shown collaborative care interventions to improve depression in adults treated in primary care, but few studies have examined whether these interventions are effective in adolescents.4 This randomised controlled trial examines whether collaborative care interventions adapted for adolescents with depression improve outcomes compared with usual care. Adolescents aged 13–17 years with depression were recruited from nine paediatric and family medicine … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJAMA%26rft.issn%253D0002-9955%26rft.volume%253D312%26rft.spage%253D809%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1001%252Fjama.2014.9259%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F25157724%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2014.9259&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=25157724&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F20%2F1%2F20.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000340788500023&link_type=ISI