Community-Partnered Cluster-Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Community Engagement and Planning or Resources for Services to Address Depression Disparities

RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA, .
Journal of General Internal Medicine (Impact Factor: 3.42). 05/2013; 28(10). DOI: 10.1007/s11606-013-2484-3
Source: PubMed


BACKGROUND: Depression contributes to disability and there are ethnic/racial disparities in access and outcomes of care. Quality improvement (QI) programs for depression in primary care improve outcomes relative to usual care, but health, social and other community-based service sectors also support clients in under-resourced communities. Little is known about effects on client outcomes of strategies to implement depression QI across diverse sectors. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of Community Engagement and Planning (CEP) and Resources for Services (RS) to implement depression QI on clients' mental health-related quality of life (HRQL) and services use. DESIGN: Matched programs from health, social and other service sectors were randomized to community engagement and planning (promoting inter-agency collaboration) or resources for services (individual program technical assistance plus outreach) to implement depression QI toolkits in Hollywood-Metro and South Los Angeles. PARTICIPANTS: From 93 randomized programs, 4,440 clients were screened and of 1,322 depressed by the 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8) and providing contact information, 1,246 enrolled and 1,018 in 90 programs completed baseline or 6-month follow-up. MEASURES: Self-reported mental HRQL and probable depression (primary), physical activity, employment, homelessness risk factors (secondary) and services use. RESULTS: CEP was more effective than RS at improving mental HRQL, increasing physical activity and reducing homelessness risk factors, rate of behavioral health hospitalization and medication visits among specialty care users (i.e. psychiatrists, mental health providers) while increasing depression visits among users of primary care/public health for depression and users of faith-based and park programs (each p < 0.05). Employment, use of antidepressants, and total contacts were not significantly affected (each p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Community engagement to build a collaborative approach to implementing depression QI across diverse programs was more effective than resources for services for individual programs in improving mental HRQL, physical activity and homelessness risk factors, and shifted utilization away from hospitalizations and specialty medication visits toward primary care and other sectors, offering an expanded health-home model to address multiple disparities for depressed safety-net clients.

Download full-text


Available from: Bowen Chung, Dec 24, 2013
1 Follower
62 Reads
    • "Partners were permitted to " get on or off the bus " (i.e., participate) as their interests, needs, and resources changed. Client baseline and 6-month outcomes findings are described elsewhere (Miranda et al., 2013; Wells et al., 2013). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The inclusion of community partners in participatory leadership roles around statistical design issues like sampling and randomization has raised concerns about scientific integrity. This article presents a case study of a community-partnered, participatory research (CPPR) cluster-randomized, comparative effectiveness trial to examine implications for study validity and community relevance. Using study administrative data, we describe a CPPR-based design and implementation process for agency/program sampling, recruitment, and randomization for depression interventions. We calculated participation rates and used cross-tabulation to examine balance by intervention status on service sector, location, and program size and assessed differences in potential populations served. We achieved 51.5% agency and 89.6% program participation rates. Programs in different intervention arms were not significantly different on service sector, location, or program size. Participating programs were not significantly different from eligible, nonparticipating programs on community characteristics. We reject claims that including community members in research design decisions compromises scientific integrity. This case study suggests that a CPPR process can improve implementation of a community-grounded, rigorous randomized comparative effectiveness trial.
    Health Promotion Practice 09/2015; DOI:10.1177/1524839915605059 · 0.55 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The third component involves patient screening and evaluation for PTSD diagnosis with structured feedback provided to PCCs Table 1 Barriers Identified, Proposed Evidence-Based Strategies for Addressing Barriers, and Intervention Components Adapted for the ViStA Study. Barriers Evidence-Based Strategies ViStA Intervention Components Patient-Level: 1. Perceived stigma 2. Low mental health literacy 1. Educating and activating/motivating patients about mental health problems [58] [59] [60] [61] 2. Linking patients to non-medical services in the community [36] [62] [63] [64] [65] "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a common problem in primary care. Although effective treatments are available, little is known about whether such treatments are effective within the context of Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) that serve as national "safety nets" for providing primary care for low income and underinsured patients. The Violence and Stress Assessment (ViStA) study is the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) to test the impact of a care management intervention for treating PTSD in FQHCs. To develop a PTSD management intervention appropriate for lower resource FQHCs and the predominantly Latino patients they serve, formative work was conducted through a collaborative effort between researchers and an FQHC practice-based research network. This article describes how FQHC stakeholders were convened to review, assess, and prioritize evidence-based strategies for addressing patient, clinician, and system-level barriers to care. This multi-component care management intervention incorporates diagnosis with feedback, patient education and activation; navigation and linkage to community resources; clinician education and medication guidance; and structured cross-disciplinary communication and continuity of care, all facilitated by care managers with FQHC experience. We also describe the evaluation design of this five-year RCT and the characteristics of the 404 English or Spanish speaking patients enrolled in the study and randomized to either the intervention or to usual care. Patients are assessed at baseline, six months, and 12months to examine intervention effectiveness on PTSD, other mental health symptoms, health-related quality-of-life, health care service use; and perceived barriers to care and satisfaction with care.
    Contemporary clinical trials 04/2014; 38(2). DOI:10.1016/j.cct.2014.04.005 · 1.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The goal of this paper is to document and evaluate the process of implementing an evidence-based depression intervention in community settings through the use of community-academic partnered approaches. We discuss how and to what extent the goals of community engagement and collaborative planning were achieved in the intervention arm of the Community Partners in Care study that aimed to adapt evidence-based depression care toolkits for diverse agencies in Hollywood and South Los Angeles. We find that partnered research strategies have a potential to effectively engage community members around depression and involve them in intervention planning activities. Our results suggest that successful collaboration among diverse agencies requires that they understand what is expected of them, are comfortable with the role they choose to perform, and have organizational support to contribute to the project. To facilitate the development of collaborative relationships, time and effort should be devoted to explaining how collaboration among diverse agencies may take place.
    Community Mental Health Journal 04/2013; 50(3). DOI:10.1007/s10597-012-9586-y · 1.03 Impact Factor
Show more