Depression is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), but it is unknown if successful depression treatment reduces CVD risk.

Using eIMPACT trial data, we examined the effect of modernized collaborative care for depression on indicators of CVD risk. A total of 216 primary care patients with depression and elevated CVD risk were randomized to 12 months of the eIMPACT intervention (internet cognitive-behavioral therapy [CBT], telephonic CBT, and select antidepressant medications) or usual primary care. CVD-relevant health behaviors (self-reported CVD prevention medication adherence, sedentary behavior, and sleep quality) and traditional CVD risk factors (blood pressure and lipid fractions) were assessed over 12 months. Incident CVD events were tracked over four years using a statewide health information exchange.

The intervention group exhibited greater improvement in depressive symptoms (p < 0.01) and sleep quality (p < 0.01) than the usual care group, but there was no intervention effect on systolic blood pressure (p = 0.36), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (p = 0.38), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (p = 0.79), triglycerides (p = 0.76), CVD prevention medication adherence (p = 0.64), or sedentary behavior (p = 0.57). There was an intervention effect on diastolic blood pressure that favored the usual care group (p = 0.02). The likelihood of an incident CVD event did not differ between the intervention (13/107, 12.1%) and usual care (9/109, 8.3%) groups (p = 0.39).

Successful depression treatment alone is not sufficient to lower the heightened CVD risk of people with depression. Alternative approaches are needed.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02458690

The purpose of this study is to focus on changes in anxiety symptoms among women treated in women’s health practices and under a collaborative care model.

Research on collaborative care has largely focused on improving depressive and anxiety symptoms among adults in primary care settings. The applicability of collaborative care in other healthcare settings is underreported with limited research investigating if collaborative care has advantages in subpopulations treated in both traditional primary care settings and other healthcare settings, such as women’s health practices.

This study, completed through secondary data analysis of the electronic record of N = 219 women across three women’s healthcare centers, evaluated if instituting a collaborative care model is associated with reduced anxiety symptoms and which factors (eg, primary diagnosis, duration of care, and use of psychotropic medications) are associated with anxiety outcomes. Anxiety symptoms were assessed using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale (GAD-7) at entry into and at termination from collaborative care services.

Overall, there was a significant reduction in average anxiety scores from baseline to termination of collaborative care (t(218) = 12.41, P < 0.001). There was a main effect for the duration of time receiving collaborative care services on anxiety score reduction (β = −0.28, SE = 0.06, P < 0.001) with a significant reduction in anxiety symptoms at the 90-day mark (t(218) = 10.58, P < 0.001). Therefore, collaborative care can be useful in women’s health practices in reducing anxiety symptoms over a 90-day time period.

To identify implementation strategies for collaborative care (CC) that are successful in the context of perinatal care.

Perinatal depression is one of the most common complications of pregnancy and is associated with adverse maternal, obstetric, and neonatal outcomes. Although treating depressive symptoms reduces risks to mom and baby, barriers to accessing psychiatric treatment remain. CC has demonstrated benefit in primary care, expanding access, yet few studies have examined the implementation of CC in perinatal care which presents unique characteristics and challenges.

We conducted qualitative interviews with 20 patients and 10 stakeholders from Collaborative Care Model for Perinatal Depression Support Services (COMPASS), a perinatal collaborative care (pCC) program implemented since 2017. We analyzed interview data by employing the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework to organize empirically selected implementation strategies from Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) to create a guide for the development of pCC programs.

We identified 14 implementation strategies used in the implementation of COMPASS. Strategies were varied, cutting across ERIC domains (eg, plan, educate, finance) and across EPIS contexts (eg, inner context – characteristics of the pCC program). The majority of strategies were identified by patients and staff as facilitators of pCC implementation. In addition, findings show opportunities for improving the implementation strategies used, such as optimal dissemination of educational materials for obstetric clinicians. The implementation of COMPASS can serve as a model for the process of building a pCC program. The identified strategies can support the implementation of this evidence-based practice for addressing postpartum depression.

Depression and anxiety are among the most common mental health conditions treated in primary care. They frequently co-occur and involve recommended treatments that overlap. Evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) shows specific stepped care interventions to be cost-effective in improving symptom remission. However, most RCTs have focused on either depression or anxiety, which limits their generalisability to routine primary care settings. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a collaborative stepped care (CSC) intervention to treat depression and/or anxiety among adults in Australian primary care settings.

A quasi-decision tree model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a CSC intervention relative to care-as-usual (CAU). The model adapted a CSC intervention described in a previous Dutch RCT to the Australian context. This 8-month, cluster RCT recruited patients with depression and/or anxiety (n = 158) from 30 primary care clinics in the Netherlands. The CSC intervention involved two steps: (1) guided self-help with a nurse at a primary care clinic; and (2) referral to specialised mental healthcare. The cost-effectiveness model adopted a health sector perspective and synthesised data from two main sources: RCT data on intervention pathways, remission probabilities and healthcare service utilisation; and Australia-specific data on demography, epidemiology and unit costs from external sources. Incremental costs and incremental health outcomes were estimated across a 1-year time horizon. Health outcomes were measured as disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) due to remitted cases of depression and/or anxiety. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured in 2019 Australian dollars (A$) per DALY averted. Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of cost-effectiveness findings.

The CSC intervention had a high probability (99.6%) of being cost-effective relative to CAU. The resulting ICER (A$5207/DALY; 95% uncertainty interval: dominant to 25 345) fell below the willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50 000/DALY. ICERs were robust to changes in model parameters and assumptions.

This study found that a Dutch CSC intervention, with nurse-delivered guided self-help treatment as a first step, could potentially be cost-effective in treating depression and/or anxiety if transferred to the Australian primary care context. However, adaptations may be required to ensure feasibility and acceptability in the Australian healthcare context. In addition, further evidence is needed to verify the real-world cost-effectiveness of the CSC intervention when implemented in routine practice and to evaluate its effectiveness/cost-effectiveness when compared to other viable stepped care interventions for the treatment of depression and/or anxiety.

The PSP has been implemented in Catalonia in 2006 in an attempt to improve the Primary Care treatment of the most common mental disorders and addictions. It’s based on a collaborative model, made up between Primary Care and Mental Health professionals.

To identify the strengths and limitations of the PSP from the perspective of Primary Care and Mental Health professionals.

Qualitative, exploratory and interpretive study based on Grounded Theory, made between 2018 and 2019 with Primary Care and Mental Health professionals. Group interviews were conducted with triangulated analysis. The study got the approval from the Research Ethics Committee of the Sant Joan de Deu’s foundation.

11 group interviews were conducted in 6 primary care centers and 5 mental health centers in Barcelona. Intrinsic and extrinsic factors impacting the programme functioning were detected. Within the extrinsic factors, elements related to professionals, patients and public health system have been observed. All the professionals agree that the PCSP has a favorable impact on inter-professional relationships and patients, facilitating the management of cases. In contrast the heterogeneity implementation, the lack of training, and the health care burden in is considered to negatively influence an optimal development of the programme. Professionals suggest communication and inter-professional collaboration would be improved by creating more a horizontal structure that eliminates vertical lines of command and disagreements in clinical judgement, thus facilitating shared decisions.

PrimaryCare and MentalHealth professionals value the PSP positively, but conclude there are communication and organizative barriers that should be addressed in order to improve the overall programme’s efficiency.

No significant relationships.

Our objective was to integrate lessons learned from perinatal collaborative care programs across the United States, recognizing the diversity of practice settings and patient populations, to provide guidance on successful implementation.

Collaborative care is a health services delivery system that integrates behavioral health care into primary care. While efficacious, effectiveness requires rigorous attention to implementation to ensure adherence to the core evidence base.

Implementation strategies are divided into three pragmatic stages: preparation, program launch, and program growth and sustainment; however, these steps are non-linear and dynamic.

The discussion that follows is not meant to be prescriptive; rather, all implementation tasks should be thoughtfully tailored to the unique needs and setting of the obstetric community and patient population. In particular, we are aware that implementation on the level described here assumes commitment of both effort and money on the part of clinicians, administrators, and the health system, and that such financial resources are not always available. We conclude with synthesis of a survey of existing collaborative care programs to identify implementation practices of existing programs.

Late-life depression is a highly prevalent disorder that causes a large economic burden. A stepped collaborative care program was set up in order to improve care for patients with late-life depression in primary care in Germany: GermanIMPACT is the adaption of the Improving Mood-Promoting Access to Collaborative Treatment (IMPACT) program that has already been established in primary care in the USA. The aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of GermanIMPACT compared with treatment as usual from a societal perspective.

This study is part of a 12-month bi-centric cluster-randomized controlled trial aiming to assess the effectiveness of GermanIMPACT compared with treatment as usual among patients with late-life depression. A cost-effectiveness analysis using depression-free days (DFDs) was performed. Net-monetary benefit (NMB) regressions adjusted for baseline differences for different willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds were conducted and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were constructed.

In total, n = 246 patients (intervention group: n = 139; control group: n = 107) with a mean age of 71 from 71 primary care practices were included in the analysis. After 12 months, adjusted mean differences in costs and DFDs between intervention group and control group were +€354 and +21.4, respectively. Only the difference in DFDs was significant (p = 0.022). According to the unadjusted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, GermanIMPACT was dominant compared with treatment as usual. The probability of GermanIMPACT being cost-effective was 80%, 90% or 95% if societal WTP per DFD was ≥€70, ≥€110 or ≥€180, respectively.

Evidence for cost-effectiveness of GermanIMPACT relative to treatment as usual is not clear. Only if societal WTP was ≥€180 for an additional DFD, GermanIMPACT could be considered cost-effective with certainty.

To investigate the implementation and initial impact of the Physician Integrated Network (PIN) mental health indicators, which are specific to screening and managing follow-up for depression, in three primary care practices with Shared Mental Health Care in Manitoba.

Manitoba Health undertook a primary care renewal initiative in 2006 called the PIN, which included the development of mental health indicators specific to screening and managing follow-up for depression. These indicators were implemented in three PIN group practice sites in Manitoba, which are also part of Shared Mental Health Care.

The design was a non-experimental longitudinal design. A formative evaluation investigated the implementation and initial impact of the mental health indicators using mixed methods (document review, survey, and interview). Quantitative data was explored using descriptive and comparative statistics and a content and theme analysis of the qualitative interviews was conducted. Survey responses were received from 32 out of 36 physicians from the three sites. Interviews were conducted with 15 providers.

This evaluation illustrated providers’ perceived attitudes, knowledge, skills, and behaviours related to recognizing and treating depression and expanded our understanding of primary care processes related to managing depression related to the implementation of a new initiative. Depression is viewed as an important problem in primary care practice that is time consuming to diagnose, manage and treat and requires further investigation. Implementation of the PIN mental health indicators was variable across sites and providers. There was an increase in use of the indicators across time and a general sentiment that benefits of screening outweigh the costs; however, the benefit of screening for depression remains unclear. Consistent with current guidelines, a question the findings of this evaluation suggests is whether there are more effective ways of having an impact on depression within primary care than screening.