Article

A fidelity measure for integrated management of depression in primary care.

Dartmouth Medical School, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire 03756, USA.
Medical Care (Impact Factor: 2.94). 12/2006; 44(11):1030-7. DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000233683.82254.63
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Integrated models of primary care depression management improve outcomes. Subsequent dissemination efforts and their evaluation need a fidelity measure.
We sought to develop and validate a fidelity measure using data gathered during routine clinical application of the clinical model.
Longitudinal outcome data on depression severity were obtained from 224 subjects experiencing major depression or dysthymia and assigned to a 3-component model (3CM) intervention. Data on 10 essential 3CM process-of-care components were obtained from telephone logs maintained by care managers administering 3CM care. Stakeholders (n = 23), including researchers, health care administrators, and care managers, independently rated the importance of the 10 elements distributing 100 points among the elements. Mean ratings were used as weights to construct a fidelity score. Predictive validity was assessed using logistic regression for patient response and remission at 3 and 6 months.
3CM fidelity was high, with a mean of 74.1 at 3 months and 75.9 at 6 months. Given a large gap in the scores' distribution, subjects were classified into zero, low-, and high-fidelity groups. Logistic regressions adjusting for baseline depression found a distinct continuum. Patients that were provided high fidelity 3CM were significantly more likely to achieve treatment response and remission at 3 months. At 6 months, high-fidelity care was again significantly more likely to produce a response, but remission rate did not differ from patients provided low fidelity.
Most patients received a substantially implemented "3CM dose." Even within this high implementation, however, a higher fidelity score was associated with better outcomes. The easily applied measure is a promising tool for monitoring the quality of implementation of integrated care.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
120 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: The National Evidence-Based Practices (EBPs) Project developed and tested a model for facilitating the implementation of five psychosocial EBPs for adults with severe mental illness in the United States. Methods: The implementation model was tested in 53 sites in 8 states. In each site, one of the five EBPs was adopted for implementation and then studied for a 2-year period using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. Findings: At baseline, none of the sites had programs attaining high fidelity. Four factors were identified as influencing fidelity: (a) EBP-specific factors, (b) governmental factors, (c) leadership factors, and (d) fidelity review factors. Conclusion: A multipronged implementation strategy was effective in achieving high fidelity in over half of the sites seeking to implement a new EBP.
    Research on Social Work Practice 08/2009; 19(5):569-581. DOI:10.1177/1049731509335531 · 1.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Patient-centered care (PCC) is a vaguely defined element of high-quality care, which precludes its consistent and precise operationalization. A conceptualization of PCC was derived from the literature and guided the development of an instrument to assess implementation of PCC by healthcare providers. The items of the instrument capture specific activities that reflect three components of PCC: holistic, collaborative, and responsive care. This paper reports on the measure's content and construct validity and reliability.Methods Content validity was evaluated in a sample of 11 nurse practitioners who rated the relevance of each items’ content in reflecting the respective component of PCC. The content validity index (CVI) was estimated. Construct validity and internal consistency reliability were examined in a survey of 149 nurse practitioners employed in acute care institutions, using factor analysis and the KR-20 coefficient, respectively.ResultsThe CVIs were 100% for the three subscales assessing the holistic, collaborative, and responsive care components of PCC. The items in each subscale loaded on one factor. The KR-20 coefficients were .66, .70, and .42, respectively. Overall, the majority (>70%) of respondents indicated performance of the activities comprising the three components of PCC.Linking Evidence to ActionThe PCC measure demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties. The low variance in responses, which is anticipated for instruments assessing fidelity of intervention implementation, accounts for the low reliability coefficients. Additional testing of the measure's psychometric properties in different groups of healthcare providers is warranted. The measure can be used to monitor healthcare providers’ implementation of PCC in their usual practice.
    Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 07/2014; 11(4). DOI:10.1111/wvn.12047 · 1.35 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Common mental health problems, such as depression and anxiety, are estimated to affect up to 15% of the UK population at any one time, and health care systems worldwide need to implement interventions to reduce the impact and burden of these conditions. Collaborative care is a complex intervention based on chronic disease management models that may be effective in the management of these common mental health problems. To assess the effectiveness of collaborative care for patients with depression or anxiety. We searched the following databases to February 2012: The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group (CCDAN) trials registers (CCDANCTR-References and CCDANCTR-Studies) which include relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from MEDLINE (1950 to present), EMBASE (1974 to present), PsycINFO (1967 to present) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, all years); the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (ICTRP); ClinicalTrials.gov; and CINAHL (to November 2010 only). We screened the reference lists of reports of all included studies and published systematic reviews for reports of additional studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of collaborative care for participants of all ages with depression or anxiety. Two independent researchers extracted data using a standardised data extraction sheet. Two independent researchers made 'Risk of bias' assessments using criteria from The Cochrane Collaboration. We combined continuous measures of outcome using standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We combined dichotomous measures using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the results. We included seventy-nine RCTs (including 90 relevant comparisons) involving 24,308 participants in the review. Studies varied in terms of risk of bias.The results of primary analyses demonstrated significantly greater improvement in depression outcomes for adults with depression treated with the collaborative care model in the short-term (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.27; RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.43), medium-term (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.15; RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.48), and long-term (SMD -0.35, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.24; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.41). However, these significant benefits were not demonstrated into the very long-term (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27).The results also demonstrated significantly greater improvement in anxiety outcomes for adults with anxiety treated with the collaborative care model in the short-term (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.17; RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.87), medium-term (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.19; RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.69), and long-term (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.06; RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.42). No comparisons examined the effects of the intervention on anxiety outcomes in the very long-term.There was evidence of benefit in secondary outcomes including medication use, mental health quality of life, and patient satisfaction, although there was less evidence of benefit in physical quality of life. Collaborative care is associated with significant improvement in depression and anxiety outcomes compared with usual care, and represents a useful addition to clinical pathways for adult patients with depression and anxiety.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2012; 10(10):CD006525. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD006525.pub2 · 5.94 Impact Factor