Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Gregory E Simon Center for Health Studies, Group Health
Cooperative, Seattle, WA 98101, USA
Correspondence to: G Simon simon.g{at}ghc.org
| |
Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Objective:
To test the effectiveness of two programmes to improve the treatment of acute depression in primary care.
Despite the high prevalence and significant
impact
1 2
of depression among patients in primary care,
management often falls short of expert recommendations: only a few
patients receive recommended levels of pharmacotherapy or experience
satisfactory clinical outcomes.3-5 Recent randomised
trials show that organised treatment programmes We examined the effects of two simple and inexpensive programmes to
improve the treatment of depression in primary care: feedback only,
which comprised computerised data on prescriptions and visits to
provide doctors with feedback on patients and algorithm based recommendations for treatment; and feedback plus care management, which
supplemented the feedback system with systematic follow up and care
management by telephone. We aimed to test three of the key management
strategies for disease described by Wagner and
VonKorff
15 16
; a population based clinical information system, monitoring of adherence to treatment, and systematic follow up
care. We hypothesised that both programmes would increase both the
frequency of follow up visits and the dose and duration of antidepressant treatment and decrease the severity of depressive symptoms.
Protocol
Design:
Randomised trial.
Setting:
Primary care clinics in Seattle.
Patients:
613 patients starting antidepressant treatment.
Intervention:
Patients were randomly assigned to
continued usual care or one of two interventions: feedback only and
feedback plus care management. Feedback only comprised feedback and
algorithm based recommendations to doctors on the basis of data from
computerised records of pharmacy and visits. Feedback plus care
management included systematic follow up by telephone, sophisticated
treatment recommendations, and practice support by a care manager.
Main outcome measures:
Blinded interviews by telephone
3 and 6 months after the initial prescription included a 20 item
depression scale from the Hopkins symptom checklist and the structured
clinical interview for the current DSM-IV depression module. Visits,
antidepressant prescriptions, and overall use of health care were
assessed from computerised records.
Results:
Compared with usual care, feedback only had no significant effect on treatment received or patient outcomes. Patients receiving feedback plus care management had a higher probability of both receiving at least moderate doses of
antidepressants (odds ratio 1.99, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to
3.22) and a 50% improvement in depression scores on the symptom
checklist (2.22, 1.31 to 3.75), lower mean depression scores on the
symptom checklist at follow up, and a lower probability of major
depression at follow up (0.46, 0.24 to 0.86). The incremental cost of
feedback plus care management was about $80 (£50) per patient.
Conclusions:
Monitoring and feedback to doctors
yielded no significant benefits for patients in primary care starting antidepressant treatment. A programme of systematic follow up and care
management by telephone, however, significantly improved outcomes at
modest cost.
![]()
Introduction
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
including both
pharmacotherapy
3 4 6
and structured
psychotherapy
4 6 7
greatly improve both quality
of care and clinical outcomes. These models, however, require several
visits to specialists, and available data show increased treatment
costs of $300 (£187.50) to $600 (£375) per patient,
8 9
which are likely to limit acceptance by patients and purchasers.
Management of other health conditions shows that fairly simple and
inexpensive interventions including computerised feedback and reminder
systems
10 11
and follow up by telephone12-14 can increase doctors' compliance with care guidelines, improve the
management of chronic illness, and support change in health behaviour.
![]()
Methods
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
Our study was conducted in five primary care clinics
of Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, an organisation serving
around 450 000 members in Washington state. The study protocol was
approved by the group's review committee on human subjects.
Assignment
After completion of the baseline interview participants
were assigned to one of three groups according to computer generated
random numbers (stratified by clinic): usual care, feedback only, or
feedback plus care management.
Treatments
In the usual care group no services other than standard
ones were provided to the patients or doctors. In the feedback only
group doctors received a detailed report on each patient eight and 16 weeks after the initial prescription. These included computerised data
(antidepressant dosage and repeat prescriptions, number of follow up
visits, and arranged visits) and treatment recommendations on the basis
of a computerised algorithm. Use of subtherapeutic doses of
antidepressants led to the recommendation that if major symptoms
persisted doctors should consider increasing the dose but that if side
effects were not tolerable they should consider changing the drug.
Absence of a scheduled follow up visit led to the recommendation that
doctors should contact patients to arrange follow up visits.
Recommendations were limited by the absence of information on drug side
effects or current severity of depression.
Blinding
Outcome assessments were conducted by independent telephone
interviewers who were blinded to both treatment group and treatment
received. Participants were advised not to reveal details of treatment
received during blinded assessments.
Outcomes
Assessments three and six months after the initial
prescription included the 20 item depression scale on the symptom
checklist17 and the current depression module of the
structured clinical interview for DSM-IV.18 From
computerised pharmacy and visit data we assessed antidepressant
treatment received (using previously developed and validated
algorithms5) and follow up visits. Treatment costs were
calculated with the 1997 Medicare fee schedule for visits and the
health plan's actual costs for all other services. Medical comorbidity
was assessed with the chronic disease score.19 Primary
economic analyses considered only treatment costs for outpatient
depression (antidepressant prescriptions, visits for mental health, and
visits to primary care with depression diagnoses). Costs of care
management were estimated from the care managers' time logs and actual
labour and overhead costs. Secondary analyses examined costs for both total health services and time in treatment. Estimates for average hourly wage of the patients treated for depression ($15.95 (£9.97)) and average time spent attending an outpatient visit (2.7 hours) were
taken from a previous study of depression treatment in primary care.20 Patient time required for assessments by a care
manager was estimated as 15 minutes per contact.
Data analysis
Data analyses compared each intervention group with the
usual care control group based on original treatment assignment,
regardless of treatment received. Clinical outcomes at three and six
months were analysed as repeated measures using mixed linear regression
models for continuous measures and mixed logistic regression models for
categorical measures. No significant group by time interaction was
observed for any measure, so we present analyses for the main effect of
intervention across both follow up assessments. Adjusted incremental
costs were estimated with mixed linear regression. All analyses
incorporated two random intercept terms to account for clustering of
patients within doctors and doctors within clinics. Mixed models were
estimated with the MIXED procedure and GLIMMIX macro of the SAS
software package (SAS, Cary, NC). Sample size was set at 200 patients
per group based on the ability to detect a 10% difference in treatment
costs for depression, with 80% statistical power and type 1 error rate of 5% (two sided).
| |
Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Participant flow and follow up
Of 872 eligible patients 101 could not be contacted by
telephone and 157 declined to participate, leaving 613 patients (70%
of those eligible and 80% of those contacted). Table 1 shows the
baseline characteristics of the participants. Rates of participation in
blinded follow up assessments were 97% at three months and 95% at six
months. All analyses based on computerised data (prescriptions, visits,
treatment costs) were limited to the 93% of patients remaining in the
health plan for six months.
|
|
Analysis
Figure 1 shows the proportion of patients receiving at least
90 days of antidepressant treatment using either a low dosing
threshold21 (for example, 75 mg per day imipramine, 10 mg per day fluoxetine) or a moderate threshold around twice as high,
reflecting doses considered adequate by psychiatrists. Patients in the
care management group received adequate pharmacotherapy more often than
those in the usual care group, but this difference was only
statistically significant using the moderate threshold (odds ratios:
low threshold 1.31, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.98; moderate
threshold 1.99, 1.23 to 3.22). The feedback only group and the usual
care group did not differ significantly on either measure. Neither
intervention had any apparent effect on number of visits for
either primary care, mental health, or total follow up (table
2).
|
|
|
|
$27 (£16.9) to $71 (£44.38)) for feedback only
and $83 (£51.88) ($32 (£20) to $134 (£83.75)) for care management.
Secondary analyses of costs for total health services and time in
treatment are shown in table 3. Although the costs for total health
services seemed higher in the care management group, this difference
was attributable to one patient with costs of $120 000 (£75 000).
Analyses that exclude this single outlier or analyses of log
transformed costs (less sensitive to extreme observations) showed no
difference in costs for total health services among the three groups.
As expected from data on number of follow up visits, costs for time in
treatment did not differ by treatment assignment.
| |
Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
In primary care the implementation of an organised programme of care monitoring, follow up by telephone, feedback to doctors, and practice support by a care manager had no effect on number of follow up visits of patients with depression but led to significant improvements in the intensity of antidepressant treatment and in clinical outcomes. Incremental costs for depression treatment (including costs of the intervention) were around $80 (£50) per patient. A programme limited to monitoring and feedback using available computerised data had no significant effect on treatment received or patient outcomes.
Our results contrast with previous research showing that feedback of computerised data can improve the quality of ambulatory care,22 increase compliance with screening guidelines, 10 11 and improve laboratory monitoring.11 We propose two explanations. Firstly, feedback arrived separately from patient visits when implementation of reminder suggestions would have required active outreach. Secondly, automated reminders may be sufficient to influence one time decisions but insufficient to support the regular follow up and treatment adjustments necessary for management of chronic illness.
Our findings are consistent with previous studies showing the benefits of follow up by telephone in the management of chronic illness 12 13 and change in health behaviour.14 Follow up by telephone initiated by a doctor ("active") may be a cost effective substitute for patients making visits to clinics. Follow up by telephone can reduce the time costs of treatment (travel and waiting time) and improve access for patients with limitations to mobility and those living in rural areas.
We cannot be certain whether the benefits of the care management programme are attributable to more intensive pharmacotherapy, more appropriate follow up care, or the non-specific effects of supportive contact with the care manager. Our findings might not be generalised to primary care doctors with different levels of knowledge, motivation, or experience in the management of depression. Our study was also limited to patients with new antidepressant prescriptions, excluding those who were unrecognised, untreated, or not given an initial prescription.
Our care management intervention seems to lie between more intensive depression interventions that have shown robust clinical effects 3 4 6 7 and less intensive interventions (such as screening programmes not linked to structured intervention23 and physician training programmes24) that have proved ineffective. Organised and consistent follow up care seems necessary to improve the management of depression, but modest interventions can yield significant benefits.
We believe that these results support the implementation of organised monitoring and care management programmes to improve the management of depression. Similar programmes might prove valuable in the management of other common chronic illnesses. Such programmes, however, are only one component of a population based approach to treatment of depression. When persistent depression results from inadequate monitoring and follow up, more organised treatment significantly improves outcomes. When depression persists despite optimal primary care management, specialty consultation or referral may be needed. Achieving good clinical outcomes may prove neither simple nor inexpensive for patients with more severe or complicated depression.
|
What is already known on this topic
Management of depression in primary care often falls short of evidence based recommendations Several randomised trials have shown that organised treatment programmes significantly improve quality of depression treatment and patient outcomes, but these programmes typically require several visits to specialists and additional expenditures of $500 (£312.50) or more per patient What this study addsA programme of two telephone monitoring contacts (eight and 16 weeks after initiation of depression treatment) followed by feedback to the doctor and care management by telephone when required showed significant benefits in the treatment of depression in primary care In contrast, a programme limited to feedback of available computerised information (number of visits and prescriptions) had no effect |
| |
Acknowledgments |
|---|
We thank Ky Haverkamp and Steve Tutty (the care managers) and Jurgen Unutzer for clinical supervision of the care managers.
Contributors: GS was principal investigator with overall responsibility for the study design, development and implementation of the intervention, interpretation of results, and preparation of this manuscript; he will act as guarantor for the paper. MVK shared responsibility for the study design, design of the intervention, measurement of outcomes, and interpretation of results. CR had primary responsibility for data analyses and shared responsibility for the study design, measurement of outcomes, and interpretation of results. EW shared responsibility for the study design, design of the intervention, and interpretation of results.
| |
Footnotes |
|---|
Funding: US National Institute of Mental Health (grant number MH51338).
Competing interests: All authors are employees of Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound.
| |
References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. |
Spitzer R, Kroenke K, Linzer M, Hahn SR, Williams JBW, de Gruy FV, et al.
Health-related quality of life in primary care patients with mental disorders.
JAMA
1995;
274:
1511-1517 |
| 2. |
Ormel J, VonKorff M, Ustun TB, Pini S, Korten A, Oldehinkel T.
Common mental disorders and disability across cultures.
JAMA
1994;
272:
1741-1748 |
| 3. |
Katon W, VonKorff M, Lin E, Walker E, Simon G, Bush T, et al.
Collaborative management to achieve treatment guidelines: impact on depression in primary care.
JAMA
1995;
273:
1026-1031 |
| 4. |
Katon W, Robinson P, VonKorff M, Lin E, Bush T, Ludman E, et al.
A multifaceted intervention to improve treatment of depression in primary care.
Arch Gen Psychiatry
1996;
53:
924-932 |
| 5. | Simon G, Lin EHB, Katon W, Saunders K, VonKorff M, Walker E, et al. Outcomes of "inadequate" antidepressant treatment in primary care. J Gen Int Med 1995; 10: 663-670[Medline]. |
| 6. |
Schulberg H, Block MR, Madonia MJ, et al.
Treating major depression in primary care practice: eight-month clinical outcomes.
Arch Gen Psychiatry
1996;
53:
913-919 |
| 7. |
Mynors-Wallis L, Gath DH, LLoyd-Thomas AR, Tomlinson D.
Randomised controlled trial comparing problem solving treatment with amitriptyline and placebo for major depression in primary care.
BMJ
1995;
310:
441-445 |
| 8. |
Lave J, Frank R, Schulberg H, Kamlet M.
Cost-effectiveness of treatments for major depression in primary care practice.
Arch Gen Psychiatry
1998;
55:
645-651 |
| 9. |
VonKorff M, Katon W, Bush T, Lin EHB, Simon GE, Saunders K, et al.
Treatment costs, cost offset, and cost-effectivness of collaborative management of depression.
Psychosom Med
1998;
60:
143-149 |
| 10. | Litzelman D, Dittus R, Miller M, Tierney WM. Requiring physicians to respond to computerized reminders improves their compliance with preventive care protocols. J Gen Int Med 1993; 8: 311-317[Medline]. |
| 11. | McDonald C, Hui S, Smith D, Tierney WM, Cohen SJ, Weinberger M, et al. Reminders to physicians from an introspective computer medical record. A two-year randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 1984; 100: 130-138. |
| 12. |
Wasson J, Gaudette C, Whaley F, Sauvigne A, Baribeau P, Welch H.
Telephone care as a substitute for routine clinic follow-up.
JAMA
1992;
267:
1788-1793 |
| 13. | Weinberger M, Tierney W, Cowper P, Katz B, Booher P. Cost-effectiveness of increased telephone contact for patients with osteoarthritis. A randomized, controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 1993; 36: 243-246[Medline]. |
| 14. | Curry S, McBride C, Grothaus L, Louie D, Wagner E. A randomized trial of self-help materials, personalized feedback, and telephone counseling with nonvolunteer smokers. J Consult Clin Psychol 1995; 63: 1005-1014[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 15. | Wagner E, Austin B, VonKorff M. Organizing care for patients with chronic illness. Milbank Q 1996; 74: 511-544[Medline]. |
| 16. |
VonKorff M, Gruman J, Schaefer J, Curry S, Wagner E.
Collaborative management of chronic illness.
Ann Intern Med
1997;
127:
1097-1102 |
| 17. | Derogatis L, Rickels K, Uhlenhuth EH, Covi L. The Hopkins symptom checklist: a measure of primary symptom dimensions. In: Pichot P, ed. Psychological measurements in psychopharmacology: problems in psychopharmacology. Basel: Kargerman, 1974:79-110. |
| 18. | First M, Spitzer R, Gibbon M, Williams J. Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV axis I disorders (SCID-I), clinician version. Washington: American Psychiatric Press, 1997. |
| 19. | Clark D, VonKorff M, Saunders K, Baluch WM, Simon GE. A chronic disease score with empirically derived weights. Med Care 1995; 33: 783-795[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 20. |
Simon G, VonKorff M, Heiligenstein JH, Revicki DA, Grothaus L, Katon W, et al.
Initial antidepressant selection in primary care: effectiveness and cost of fluoxetine vs tricyclic antidepressants.
JAMA
1996;
275:
1897-1902 |
| 21. | Agency for Health Policy and Research. Depression guideline panel. Clinical practice guideline No 5: depression in primary care , Vol 2: treatment of major depression Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services. AHCPR, 1993. (Publication No 93-0550). |
| 22. |
Balas E, Austin S, Mitchell J, Weigman B, Bopp K, Brown G.
The clinical value of computerized information services. A review of 98 randomized clinical trials.
Arch Fam Med
1996;
5:
271-278 |
| 23. |
Dowrick C, Buchan I.
Twelve month outcome of depression in general practice: does detection or disclosure make a difference?
BMJ
1995;
311:
1274-1277 |
| 24. | Goldberg H, Wagner E, Fihn S, Martin DP, Horowitz CR, Christensen DB, et al. A randomized controlled trial of CQI teams and academic detailing: can they alter compliance with guidelines? Jt Comm J Qual Impr 1998; 24: 130-142. |
(Accepted 2 January 2000)