Michael S. Klinkman

Behavioral Intervention Technologies: Evidence review and recommendations for future research in mental health

OBJECTIVE A technical expert panel convened by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institute of Mental Health was charged with reviewing the state of research on behavioral intervention technologies (BITs) in mental health and identifying the top research priorities. BITs refers to behavioral and psychological interventions that use information and communication technology features to address behavioral and mental health outcomes. METHOD This study on the findings of the technical expert panel. RESULTS Videoconferencing and standard telephone technologies to deliver psychotherapy have been well validated. Web-based interventions have shown efficacy across a broad range of mental health outcomes. Social media such as online support groups have produced disappointing outcomes when used alone. Mobile technologies have received limited attention for mental health outcomes. Virtual reality has shown good efficacy for anxiety and pediatric disorders. Serious gaming has received little work in mental health. CONCLUSION Research focused on understanding reach, adherence, barriers and cost is recommended. Improvements in the collection, storage, analysis and visualization of big data will be required. New theoretical models and evaluation strategies will be required. Finally, for BITs to have a public health impact, research on implementation and application to prevention is required.

Adherence to Maintenance-Phase Antidepressant Medication as a Function of Patient Beliefs About Medication

PURPOSE This study aimed to identify the demographic, psychiatric, and attitudinal predictors of treatment adherence during the maintenance phase of antidepressant treatment, ie, after symptoms and regimen are stabilized. METHODS We surveyed 81 primary care patients given maintenance antidepressant medications regarding general adherence, recent missed doses, depression and treatment features, medication beliefs (necessity, concerns, harmfulness, and overprescription), and other variables. Additional data were collected from medical and payer records. RESULTS Median treatment duration was 75 weeks. Adherence and beliefs were broadly dispersed and unrelated to treatment duration and type, physical functioning, and demographics. Multivariate analysis adjusting for social desirability, depression severity, and treatment duration indicated that an antidepressant-specific “necessity-minus-concerns” composite was strongly associated with both adherence outcomes. Specifically, adherence was highest when necessity exceeded concerns and lowest when concerns exceeded necessity. We crossed these 2 dimensions to characterize 4 patient attitudes toward antidepressants: skepticism, indifference, ambivalence, and acceptance. CONCLUSIONS Patients given maintenance antidepressants vary widely in adherence. This variation is primarily explained by the balance between their perceptions of need and harmfulness of antidepressant medication, in that adherence is lowest when perceived harm exceeds perceived need, and highest when perceived need exceeds perceived harm. We speculate on ways to tailor adherence strategies to patient beliefs. Subsequent research should determine whether patients’ perceptions about medication predict depression outcomes, can be used to improve clinical management, and respond to behavioral intervention.

Explaining Patients’ Beliefs About the Necessity and Harmfulness of Antidepressants

PURPOSE Patients’ beliefs about antidepressants vary widely and probably influence adherence, yet little is known about what underlies such beliefs. This study’s objective was to identify the demographic and clinical characteristics that account for patients’ beliefs about antidepressants. METHODS Participants were 165 patients with unipolar nonpsychotic major depression from primary care and psychiatry clinics who were participating in the baseline phase of a multistaged trial of medication and psychotherapy. Before patients started antidepressants, interview and self-report measures were used to assess treatment beliefs, depression features, and comorbid conditions. Linear multivariate regression was used to identify the strongest correlates of perceived medication necessity and harmfulness after adjusting for age, sex, education, and the random effects of patients within clinical site. RESULTS Perceived necessity was associated with older age (P <.001), more severe symptoms (P = .03), longer anticipated duration of symptoms (P=.001), and attribution of symptoms to chemical imbalance (P=.005). Perceived harmfulness was highest among patients who had not taken antidepressants before (P = .02), attributed their symptoms to random factors (P=.04), and had a subjectively unclear understanding of depression (P = .003). Neither belief was significantly associated with sex, education, age at first depressive episode, presence of melancholia or anxiety, psychiatric comorbidity, or clinical setting. CONCLUSIONS Skepticism about antidepressants is strongest among younger patients who have never taken antidepressants, view their symptoms as mild and transient, and feel unclear about the factors affecting their depression. Perhaps these patients would benefit the most from adherence promotion focusing on treatment beliefs.

Emotional Disorders in Primary Care

Individuals with emotional disorders are more likely to use primary medical care than specialty mental health services, but these disorders are likely to be undetected or inadequately treated. Recognition of the importance of primary medical care for the treatment of mental disorder has resulted in pressing new research priorities. One set of issues concerns the adequacy of existing nosological systems for conceptualizing emotional disorder in primary care and identifying need for treatment. Another concerns the difficulties translating efficacious treatment into effective strategies that can be integrated into the competing demands of primary medical care. Psychologists have played only a limited role in defining and addressing emerging questions. Irreversible changes in mental health services have created the need for the development of a psychosocial perspective for what would otherwise be defined as narrowly biomedical issues.

Depression in primary care--more like asthma than appendicitis: the Michigan Depression Project.

Objective: To explore the relationships between detection, treatment, and outcome of depression in the primary care setting, based upon results from the Michigan Depression Project (MDP). Methods: A weighted sample of 425 adult family practice patients completed a comprehensive battery of questionnaires exploring stress, social support, overall health, health care utilization, treatment attitudes, self-rated levels of stress and depression, along with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III (SCID), which served as the criterion standard for diagnosis. A comparison sample of 123 depressed psychiatric outpatients received the same assessment battery. Family practice patients received repeated assessment of depressive symptoms, stress, social support, and health care utilization over a period of up to 60 months of longitudinal follow-up. Results: The central MDP findings confirm that significant differences in past history, severity, and impairment exist between depressed psychiatric and family practice patients, that detection rates are significantly higher for severely depressed primary care patients, and that clinicians use clinical cues such as past history, distress, and severity of symptoms to “detect” depression in patients at intermediate and mild levels of severity. As well, there is a lack of association between detection and improved outcome in primary care patients. Conclusion: These results call into question the assumption that “depression is depression” irrespective of the setting and physician, and they are consistent with a model of depressive disorder as a subacute or chronic condition characterized by clinical parameters of severity, staging, and comorbidity, similar to asthma. This new model can guide further investigation into the epidemiology and management of mood disorders in the primary care setting.

Major Depression Symptoms in Primary Care and Psychiatric Care Settings: A Cross-Sectional Analysis

PURPOSE We undertook a study to confirm and extend preliminary findings that participants with major depressive disorder (MDD) in primary care and specialty care settings have with equivalent degrees of depression severity and an indistinguishable constellation of symptoms. METHODS Baseline data were collected for a distinct validation cohort of 2,541 participants (42% primary care) from 14 US regional centers comprised of 41 clinic sites (18 primary care, 23 specialty care). Participants met broadly inclusive eligibility criteria requiring a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, diagnosis of MDD and a minimum depressive symptom score on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. The main outcome measures were the 30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology – Clinician Rated and the Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire. RESULTS Primary care and specialty care participants had identical levels of moderately severe depression and identical distributions of depressive severity scores. Both primary care and specialty care participants showed considerable suicide risk, with specialty care participants even more likely to report prior suicide attempts. Core depressive symptoms or concurrent psychiatric disorders were not substantially different between settings. One half of participants in each setting had an anxiety disorder (48.6% primary care vs 51.6% specialty care, P = .143), with social phobia being the most common (25.3% primary care vs 32.1% specialty care, P = .002). CONCLUSIONS For outpatients with nonpsychotic MDD, depressive symptoms and severity vary little between primary care and specialty care settings. In this large, broadly inclusive US sample, the risk factors for chronic and recurrent depressive illness were frequently present, highlighting a clear risk for treatment resistance and the need for aggressive management strategies in both settings.

Electronic health record functionality needed to better support primary care

Electronic health records (EHRs) must support primary care clinicians and patients, yet many clinicians remain dissatisfied with their system. This article presents a consensus statement about gaps in current EHR functionality and needed enhancements to support primary care. The Institute of Medicine primary care attributes were used to define needs and meaningful use (MU) objectives to define EHR functionality. Current objectives remain focused on disease rather than the whole person, ignoring factors such as personal risks, behaviors, family structure, and occupational and environmental influences. Primary care needs EHRs to move beyond documentation to interpreting and tracking information over time, as well as patient-partnering activities, support for team-based care, population-management tools that deliver care, and reduced documentation burden. While stage 3 MUs focus on outcomes is laudable, enhanced functionality is still needed, including EHR modifications, expanded use of patient portals, seamless integration with external applications, and advancement of national infrastructure and policies.

Persons with depressive symptoms and the treatments they receive: a comparison of primary care physicians and psychiatrists.

Objective: To determine if demographic differences exist in patients with depressive symptoms as the principal reason for visits to primary care physicians (PCP) versus psychiatrists. To estimate the likelihood of these patients receiving a range of mental health services from each provider group. Methods: Review and analysis of all outpatient visits made by patients with depressive symptoms using the National Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys (NAMCS) conducted in 1995 and 1996. Results: A significantly greater proportion of visits by persons with depressive symptoms as the principal reason for visit were made to psychiatrists than to primary care physicians (T = −3.56, p = .000). However, men, African-Americans, other Non-White persons, and persons aged 65 to 74 and 75 years and over were proportionately more likely to visit a PCP than a psychiatrist. Women, whites, and persons aged 45 to 64 were proportionately more likely to make a visit to a psychiatrist than to a PCP. The overall intensity of care delivered by PCPs for patients with depressive symptoms was significantly lower than that provided by psychiatrists (t = −2.03, p = .02). Analysis of individual services also revealed significant differences in service provision. Conclusions: Demographic differences among the patient caseloads of these physician groups have implications for mental health service delivery because of known distinctions in prevalence rates, symptom presentation, and functionality among depressed patient subgroups.

Proposed new diagnoses of anxious depression and bodily stress syndrome in ICD-11-PHC: an international focus group study

BACKGROUND The World Health Organization is revising the primary care classification of mental and behavioural disorders for the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11-Primary Health Care (PHC)) aiming to reduce the disease burden associated with mental disorders among member countries. OBJECTIVE To explore the opinions of primary care professionals on proposed new diagnostic entities in draft ICD-11-PHC, namely anxious depression and bodily stress syndrome (BSS). METHODS Qualitative study with focus groups of primary health-care workers, using standard interview schedule after draft ICD-11-PHC criteria for each proposed entity was introduced to the participants. RESULTS Nine focus groups with 4-15 participants each were held at seven locations: Austria, Brazil, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Pakistan, Tanzania and United Kingdom. There was overwhelming support for the inclusion of anxious depression, which was considered to be very common in primary care settings. However, there were concerns about the 2-week duration of symptoms being too short to make a reliable diagnosis. BSS was considered to be a better term than medically unexplained symptoms but there were disagreements about the diagnostic criteria in the number of symptoms required. CONCLUSION Anxious depression is well received by primary care professionals, but BSS requires further modification. International field trials will be held to further test these new diagnoses in draft ICD-11-PHC.

Impact of a Generalizable Reminder System on Colorectal Cancer Screening in Diverse Primary Care Practices: A Report From the Prompting and Reminding at Encounters for Prevention Project

Background:Computerized reminder systems (CRS) show promise for increasing preventive services such as colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, prior research has not evaluated a generalizable CRS across diverse, community primary care practices. We evaluated whether a generalizable CRS, ClinfoTracker, could improve screening rates for CRC in diverse primary care practices. Methods:The study was a prospective trial to evaluate ClinfoTracker using historical control data in 12 Great Lakes Research In Practice Network community-based, primary care practices distributed from Southeast to Upper Peninsula Michigan. Our outcome measures were pre- and post-study practice-level CRC screening rates among patients seen during the 9-month study period. Ability to maintain the CRS was measured by days of reminder printing. Field notes were used to examine each practices cohesion and technology capabilities. Results:All but one practice increased their CRC screening rates, ranging from 3.3% to 16.8% improvement. t tests adjusted for within practice correlation showed improvement in screening rates across all 12 practices, from 41.7% to 50.9%, P = 0.002. Technology capabilities impacted printing days (74% for high technology vs. 45% for low technology practices, P = 0.01), and cohesion demonstrated an impact trend for screening (15.3% rate change for high cohesion vs. 7.9% for low cohesion practices). Conclusions:Implementing a generalizable CRS in diverse primary care practices yielded significant improvements in CRC screening rates. Technology capabilities are important in maintaining the system, but practice cohesion may have a greater influence on screening rates. This work has important implications for practices implementing reminder systems.