Effectiveness of a coordinated ambulatory care program for patients with mental disorders or multiple sclerosis: results of a prospective non-randomized controlled trial in South Germany.

Background: The Psychiatry, Neurology, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy (PNP) program of the German statutory health insurance AOK BW promotes coordinated and evidence-based specialist care with the aim of providing individualized, guideline-based outpatient care, strengthening the collaboration between health care providers, as well as reducing care costs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate its effectiveness regarding patient-reported outcomes compared to the less specialized general practitioner program (GP) and usual care (UC). Materials and methods: AOK insured patients, who were on sick leave due to a mental disorder (affective disorder, anxiety disorder, adjustment disorder, somatoform disorder, alcohol abuse disorder, schizophrenia) or multiple sclerosis were included in the prospective non-randomized controlled study. All patients either participated in the PNP program (intervention group, IG-PNP), the general practitioner program (control group, CG-GP) or usual care (control group, CG-UC). Entropy balancing was used to adjust for baseline imbalance between groups. Primary outcome was health-related quality of life, assessed by the Short-form health survey (SF-36) 12 months after diagnosis. Secondary outcomes included symptom severity, functional health, and treatment satisfaction. Results: Of the 14,483 insured patients who were contacted, 1,104 patients participated at baseline and 725 at follow-up. The adjusted mean differences of SF-36 sum score did not significantly differ between groups: -1.89 (95%-CI = -4.60; 0.81, p = 0.170) between IG-PNP and CG-GP, and -1.42 (95%-CI = -4.05; 1.22, p = 0.293) between PNP and CG-UC. The adjusted mean differences of secondary outcomes did not differ between groups, except for a slightly higher increase of functional health in CG-UC. Conclusion: We found no evidence that the PNP program is superior to the GP program or to usual care in terms of patient-reported outcomes or treatment satisfaction. The results are limited by the low response rate. Accordingly, future studies should strive for more representative samples. To improve the program, an integration of further collaborative care elements and guideline recommendations might be useful. Clinical trial registration: DRKS (German Clinical Trials Register https://drks.de/search/en); identifier (DRKS00013114).

Influence of established and subjectively perceived as well as evaluated individual characteristics on the utilization of mental health services among individuals with depressive disorders: protocol of a longitudinal study examining how to supplement the "behavioral model of health services use" and on need-congruent use of mental health services.

BACKGROUND: Approximately one out of every three people in Germany who meets the diagnostic criteria for major depression has contact with mental health services. Therefore, according to treatment guidelines, two thirds of all individuals with depression are insufficiently treated. In the past, the subjective perspective of people who (do not) make use of mental health services has been neglected. Factors related to the use of health services are described in Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Services Use (ABM). The aim of this study is to supplement operationalizations of subjectively perceived and evaluated individual characteristics in the ABM and to evaluate whether the supplemented model can better explain mental health services use in individuals with depression than established operationalizations. METHODS: A representative telephone study with two measurement points will be conducted. In an explanatory mixed-methods design, qualitative interviews will be added to further interpret the quantitative data. A nationwide sample scoring 5 or more on the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) will be recruited and interviewed via telephone at T0 and 12 months later (T1). Data on established and subjective characteristics as well as mental health service use will be collected. At T1, conducting a diagnostic interview (Composite International Diagnostic Interview, DIA-X-12/M-CIDI) enables the recording of 12-month diagnoses according to DSM-IV-TR criteria. Ideally, n = 768 datasets will be available and analyzed descriptively by means of regression analysis. Up to n = 32 persons who use or do not use depression-specific health services incongruent with their objective or subjective needs will be interviewed (face-to-face) to better explain their behavior. In addition, theories of non-need-based mental health service use are developed within the framework of the grounded theory-based analysis of the qualitative interviews. DISCUSSION: The study intends to contribute to the theoretical foundation of health services research and to specify the characteristics described in the ABM. Thus, after completion of the study, a further sophisticated and empirically tested model will be available to explain mental health services. The identified modifiable influencing factors are relevant for the development of strategies to increase mental health service use in line with the objective and subjective needs of individuals with depression.

Patient involvement in developing a patient-targeted feedback intervention after depression screening in primary care within the randomized controlled trial GET.FEEDBACK.GP.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly required in mental health services research. To empower patients to actively address depression, the GET.FEEDBACK.GP study evaluates a patient-targeted feedback intervention after depression screening using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). OBJECTIVE: To refine the patient-targeted feedback from a previous study within a participatory research team (PRT) by conducting workshops to investigate patients' needs and preferences for feedback. To evaluate the process and outcome of PPI. DESIGN: Patient and public involvement was carried out on the levels of collaboration and consultation. A PRT of patient partners and researchers planned and conducted three workshops with patients. Patients' needs were investigated using a focus group. Participants prioritized needs, discussed feedback drafts and evaluated two drafts using cognitive debriefings. Researchers of the PRT communicated the results at project level. PPI was evaluated using the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tools (PPEET). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A purposeful sampling of N = 12 patients with experiences of depression participated in at least one workshop. RESULTS: Relevant content-related needs about feedback (eg no distinction between severe and moderate symptoms), recommendations for action and patient-relevant information were considered. Needs for comprehensible, valuing, nonstigmatizing language and design elements (eg dimensional bar) were implemented. Workshops and PRT were positively evaluated. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Patient and public involvement influenced the content, wording and design of the feedback. Strengths include two levels of PPI, methodical diversity and purposeful sampling. Limitations include the lack of inclusion of patients who are unaware of their depression. The evaluated PPI concept can be useful for future studies.

GPs' views on the use of depression screening and GP-targeted feedback: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: The first aim of this qualitative study was to identify general practitioners' (GPs') views on depression screening combined with GP-targeted feedback in primary care. The second aim was to determine the needs and preferences of GPs with respect to GP-targeted feedback to enhance the efficacy of depression screening. METHODS: A semistructured qualitative interview was conducted with officially registered GPs in Hamburg (Germany). Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. An inductive approach was used to code the transcripts. RESULTS: Nine GPs (27 to 70 years; 5 male) from Hamburg, Germany, participated. Regarding depression screening combined with GP-targeted feedback, five thematic groups were identified: application of screening; screening and patient-physician relationships; GPs' attitudes towards screening; benefits and concerns related to screening; and GPs' needs and preferences regarding feedback. While the negative aspects of screening can be described in rather general terms (e.g., screening determines the mental health competence, screening threatens the doctor-patient relationship, revealing questions harm the patients), its advantages were very specific (e.g., promoting the identification of undetected cases, relief of the daily workload, wider communication channel to reach more patients). Standardized GP-targeted feedback of the screening results was perceived as helpful and purposeful. GPs preferred feedback materials that eased their clinical workload (e.g., short text with visuals, pictures, or images). CONCLUSION: Addressing GPs' needs is essential when implementing depression screening tools in clinical practice. To overcome prejudices and enhance the efficacy of screening, further education for GPs on the purpose and application on depression screening may be needed. Standardized GP-targeted feedback in combination with depression screening could be the missing link to improve the detection of depression in primary care.

Depression treatment in Germany - using claims data to compare a collaborative mental health care program to the general practitioner program and usual care in terms of guideline adherence and need-oriented access to psychotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Societies strive for fast-delivered, evidence-based and need-oriented depression treatment within budget constraints. To explore potential improvements, selective contracts can be implemented. Here, we evaluate if the German collaborative psychiatry-neurology-psychotherapy contract (PNP), which extends the gatekeeping-based general practitioner (GP) program, improved guideline adherence or need-oriented and timely access to psychotherapy compared to usual care (UC). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study based on health insurance claims data. After we identified patients with depression who were on sick leave due to a mental disorder in 2015, we applied entropy balancing to adjust for selection effects and employed chi-squared tests to compare guideline adherence of the received treatment between PNP, the GP program and UC. Subsequently, we applied an extended cox regression to assess need-orientation by comparing the relationship between accumulated sick leave days and waiting times for psychotherapy across health plans. RESULTS: N = 23,245 patients were included. Regarding guideline adherence, we found no significant differences for most severity subgroups; except that patients with a first moderate depressive episode received antidepressants or psychotherapy more often in UC. Regarding need-orientation, we observed that the effect of each additional month of sick leave on the likelihood of starting psychotherapy was increased by 6% in PNP compared to UC. Irrespective of the health plan, we found that within the first 12 months only between 24.3 and 39.7% (depending on depression severity) received at least 10 psychotherapy sessions or adequate pharmacotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The PNP contract strengthens the relationship between sick leave days and the delay until the beginning of psychotherapy, which suggests improvements in terms of need-oriented access to care. However, we found no indication for increased guideline adherence and - independent of the health plan - a gap in sufficient utilization of adequate treatment options.

How does the integration of collaborative care elements in a gatekeeping system affect the costs for mental health care in Germany?

Mental disorders are widespread, debilitating and associated with high costs. In Germany, usual care (UC) for mental disorders is afflicted by poor coordination between providers and long waiting times. Recently, the primary alternative to UC-the gatekeeping-based general practitioners (GP) program-was extended by the collaborative Psychiatry-Neurology-Psychotherapy (PNP) program, which is a selective contract designed to improve mental health care and the allocation of resources. Here, we assess the effects of the GP program and the PNP program on costs for mental health care. We analyzed claims data from 2014 to 2016 of 55,472 adults with a disorder addressed by PNP to compare costs and sick leave days between PNP, the GP program and UC. The individuals were grouped and balanced via entropy balancing to adjust for potentially confounding covariates. We employed a negative binomial model to compare sick leave days and two-part models to compare sick pay, outpatient, inpatient and medication costs over a 12-month period. The PNP program significantly reduced sick pay by 164€, compared to UC, and by 177€, compared to the GP program. Consistently, sick leave days were lower in PNP. We found lower inpatient costs in PNP than in UC (-194€) and in the GP program (-177€), but no reduction in those shares of inpatient costs that accrued in psychiatric or neurological departments. Our results suggest that integrating collaborative care elements in a gatekeeping system can favourably impact costs. In contrast, we found no evidence that the widely implemented GP program reduces costs for mental health care.

[PNP Program - Collaborative Mental and Neurological Health Care Program in Baden-Württemberg: Evaluation from the Perspective of Health Care Providers Enrolled in the Program]. / PNP-Vertrag ­ Facharztvertrag Psychotherapie, Neurologie, Psychiatrie in Baden-Württemberg: Evaluation aus der Sicht der teilnehmenden Behandlerinnen und Behandler.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate structure and process quality from the perspective of health care providers enrolled in the PNP program. This collaborative care program developed by a German statutory health insurance provides specific rules on psychiatric, neurological, psychosomatic, and psychotherapeutic treatment. It aims to improve the quality of health care by strengthening evidence-based outpatient care and collaboration between health care providers. METHODS: Based on qualitative interviews with n = 9 enrolled health care providers a questionnaire was developed and sent to all N = 720 enrolled health care providers. RESULTS: N = 430 health care providers (81 % psychotherapists, 2 % psychiatrists, 2 % neurologists, 15 % ≥ one profession) participated (60 %). 94 % were satisfied with the program. Problems with access, treatment and cooperation were reported. CONCLUSION: The positive evaluation and the potential for improvements of the PNP program can support its advancement (e. g. enrolment, billing).

[Beliefs about Treatment of Depression - A Qualitative Analysis of Treatment Beliefs about Psychotherapy and Primary Care among People with Depression]. / Depressionsbehandlung aus Betroffenensicht ­ Eine qualitative Analyse der subjektiven Behandlungsvorstellungen über Psychotherapie und hausärztliche Versorgung von Menschen mit Depressionen.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify treatment beliefs about psychotherapy and primary care for depression among people with depressive disorders. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews among 21 people with depression and different experiences with health care. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: We identified beliefs about treatment outcome, processes, structural aspects and impacts. Beliefs about treatment processes concerned health care provider-patient-relationship, role of patients and health care providers. Respondents doubted GPs' diagnostic and treatment skills, perceived lack of GPs' and therapists time for treatment. CONCLUSION: More information about depression treatment including availability of treatment, side effects, primary care, GPs' competencies as well as the process of psychotherapy need to be provided.

Illness beliefs about depression among patients seeking depression care and patients seeking cardiac care: an exploratory analysis using a mixed method design.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of depression in cardiac patients is difficult. Patients' illness beliefs regarding depression are associated with outcomes. The aim of the mixed-methods study was to test whether patients in routine care for depression differ from patients with depression in routine care for cardiac diseases regarding illness beliefs about depression. METHODS: A consecutive sample of n = 217 patients with depressive disorder was recruited from routine care for depression (N = 148) and routine care for cardiac diseases (N = 69). Beliefs about depression were measured by the Brief-Illness Perception Questionnaire. Causal beliefs were categorized using qualitative methods. To investigate differences regarding other illness beliefs, we performed an ANCOVA controlling for sociodemographic and clinical differences by propensity score matching. RESULTS: Patients in routine care for cardiac diseases attributed their depression more often to physical illnesses (48% vs. 16%) and less often to their self (30% vs. 47%), problems at work (25% vs. 35%), childhood (25% vs. 30%), and negative life events (19% vs. 25%) in contrast to patients in routine care for depression. Patients in routine care for cardiac diseases reported beliefs of lower disability, burden, and treatment-control and of higher self-control in contrast to patients in routine care for depression. CONCLUSIONS: Illness beliefs especially causal beliefs differ between patients in routine care for cardiac diseases and routine care for depression. Future research should investigate effects of these illness beliefs. We recommend exploring patients' illness beliefs about depression in routine care for cardiac diseases and routine care for depression.

Collaborative mental health care program versus a general practitioner program and usual care for treatment of patients with mental or neurological disorders in Germany: protocol of a multiperspective evaluation study.

BACKGROUND: German statutory health insurances are pursuing the goal of improving treatment of chronically ill people by promoting networks of health care providers and supporting treatments that reflect the current medical knowledge. The so-called PNP program is a collaborative care program developed by a German statutory health insurance, which defines specific rules on psychiatric, neurological, psychosomatic, and psychotherapeutic treatment. It aims to strengthen provision of guideline-based outpatient treatment and collaboration between different health care providers. It includes the general practitioners' program, which aims to strengthen the coordinating role of GPs. This study aims to evaluate the PNP program. METHODS: To evaluate the effectiveness of the PNP program, we will conduct a prospective non-randomized controlled trial with primary data comparing patients enrolled in the PNP program and in the general practitioner program (intervention group) to patients enrolled only in the general practitioner program and patients who receive usual care (control groups). To evaluate costs and level of detail of diagnoses in care of patients with PNP program, we will use routinely collected secondary administrative health data in a retrospective quasi-experimental design. Patients who are at least 18 years old, insured by the statutory health insurance AOK, and on sick leave due to one of the mental or neurological diagnoses (affective, anxiety, somatoform or adjustment disorders, alcohol use disorders, schizophrenia, multiple sclerosis) will be included. We will collect data at baseline and at 12-months follow-up. Health-related quality of life (primary data) and direct costs (secondary data) caused by outpatient and inpatient service utilization and medication will be the primary outcomes. We will analyze data using (generalized) linear mixed models and exploratory analyses. We will use entropy balancing to control for possible differences between the groups. We will use an exploratory sequential design including qualitative and descriptive statistical analyses to assess the structure and process quality of the PNP program among health care providers. DISCUSSION: The results will help to develop a comprehensive picture of collaborative care programs for mental and neurological health care from the perspective of patients, health care providers, and health insurance companies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00013114.

Factors associated with help-seeking behaviour among individuals with major depression: A systematic review.

Psychological models can help to understand why many people suffering from major depression do not seek help. Using the 'Behavioral Model of Health Services Use', this study systematically reviewed the literature on the characteristics associated with help-seeking behaviour in adults with major depression. Articles were identified by systematically searching the MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycInfo databases and relevant reference lists. Observational studies investigating the associations between individual or contextual characteristics and professional help-seeking behaviour for emotional problems in adults formally diagnosed with major depression were included. The quality of the included studies was assessed, and factors associated with help-seeking behaviour were qualitatively synthesized. In total, 40 studies based on 26 datasets were included. Several studies investigated predisposing (age (N = 17), gender (N = 16), ethnicity (N = 9), education (N = 11), marital status (N = 12)), enabling (income (N = 12)), need (severity (N = 14), duration (N = 9), number of depressive episodes (N = 6), psychiatric comorbidity (N = 10)) and contextual factors (area (N = 8)). Socio-demographic and need factors appeared to influence help-seeking behaviour. Although existing studies provide insight into the characteristics associated with help seeking for major depression, cohort studies and research on beliefs about, barriers to and perceived need for treatment are lacking. Based on this review, interventions to increase help-seeking behaviour can be designed.

What Do Patients Think about the Cause of Their Mental Disorder? A Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Causal Beliefs of Mental Disorder in Inpatients in Psychosomatic Rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Patients' causal beliefs about their mental disorders are important for treatment because they affect illness-related behaviours. However, there are few studies exploring patients' causal beliefs about their mental disorder. OBJECTIVES: (a) To qualitatively explore patients' causal beliefs of their mental disorder, (b) to explore frequencies of patients stating causal beliefs, and (c) to investigate differences of causal beliefs according to patients' primary diagnoses. METHOD: Inpatients in psychosomatic rehabilitation were asked an open-ended question about their three most important causal beliefs about their mental illness. Answers were obtained from 678 patients, with primary diagnoses of depression (N = 341), adjustment disorder (N = 75), reaction to severe stress (N = 57) and anxiety disorders (N = 40). Two researchers developed a category system inductively and categorised the reported causal beliefs. Qualitative analysis has been supplemented by logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: The causal beliefs were organized into twelve content-related categories. Causal beliefs referring to "problems at work" (47%) and "problems in social environment" (46%) were most frequently mentioned by patients with mental disorders. 35% of patients indicate causal beliefs related to "self/internal states". Patients with depression and patients with anxiety disorders stated similar causal beliefs, whereas patients with reactions to severe stress and adjustment disorders stated different causal beliefs in comparison to patients with depression. LIMITATIONS: There was no opportunity for further exploration, because we analysed written documents. CONCLUSIONS: These results add a detailed insight to mentally ill patients' causal beliefs to illness perception literature. Additionally, evidence about differences in frequencies of causal beliefs between different illness groups complement previous findings. For future research it is important to clarify the relation between patients' causal beliefs and the chosen treatment.

[How to do Research? Development and Evaluation of a Research Training for Patients with Mental Disorders]. / Mitforschen, aber wie? Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Forschungstrainings für Psychiatrieerfahrene.

Objective Participation of mental health services users in research is increasingly acknowledged in Germany. Principles for successful involvement include research training for service users. The aims of the project were (1) to develop and (2) to evaluate a research training. Methods The research training was developed in five participatory meetings and piloted with 28 participants. They answered questions on the research training and about their interest in research, research-related empowerment and research participation. Results Interest in research did not change. But there is a difference between research-related empowerment before (t1) and after (t2) the research training (z = - 2.237; p = 0.025). The number of participants registered in scientific studies increased from 4 (t1) to 8 three months later (t3) whereas the number of participants reporting own research ideas decreased from 7 (t1) to 5 (t3). Conclusion Although interest has not been affected, the evaluation shows significant effects on research-related empowerment in participants. Results concerning transfer are divergent. However, feedback was positive. We are planning to disseminate and refine the training.

A qualitative investigation of barriers and facilitators of rehabilitation success from the psychosomatic inpatients' perspective.

OBJECTIVE: Psychosomatic inpatient rehabilitation aims at promoting functioning in patients with mental disorders. Although generally effective, some patients do not benefit from this rehabilitation and suffer from symptoms as well as functional impairment. This study aimed to identify patient-reported factors influencing activity and participation outcomes. SUBJECT AND METHODS: Five focus groups with N=23 former psychosomatic rehabilitation inpatients were conducted. The discussions focused on facilitators and barriers of treatment outcome. The material was analyzed inductively according to qualitative content analysis. Categories were derived from the material. RESULTS: Patients reported sociodemographic and clinical characteristics as well as personal factors, preparation before psychotherapy, and aspects of employment and health care as predictors of treatment success. CONCLUSION: A wide range of possible factors that influence the course of functioning from the patients' perspective were determined. These factors can be assigned to the ICF conceptual model. Clinician and researcher perspectives may complement these factors.