Comparative effectiveness of safety planning intervention with instrumental support calls (ISC) versus safety planning intervention with two-way text message caring contacts (CC) in adolescents and adults screening positive for suicide risk in emergency departments and primary care clinics: Protocol for a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Suicide is a leading cause of death in adolescents and adults in the US. Follow-up support delivered when patients return home after an emergency department (ED) or primary care encounter can significantly reduce suicidal ideation and attempts. Two follow-up models to augment usual care including the Safety Planning Intervention have high efficacy: Instrumental Support Calls (ISC) and Caring Contacts (CC) two-way text messages, but they have never been compared to assess which works best. This protocol for the Suicide Prevention Among Recipients of Care (SPARC) Trial aims to determine which model is most effective for adolescents and adults with suicide risk. METHODS: The SPARC Trial is a pragmatic randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of ISC versus CC. The sample includes 720 adolescents (12-17 years) and 790 adults (18+ years) who screen positive for suicide risk during an ED or primary care encounter. All participants receive usual care and are randomized 1:1 to ISC or CC. The state suicide hotline delivers both follow-up interventions. The trial is single-masked, with participants unaware of the alternative treatment, and is stratified by adolescents/adults. The primary outcome is suicidal ideation and behavior, measured using the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) screener at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include C-SSRS at 12 months, and loneliness, return to crisis care for suicidality, and utilization of outpatient mental health services at 6 and 12 months. DISCUSSION: Directly comparing ISC and CC will determine which follow-up intervention is most effective for suicide prevention in adolescents and adults.

Collaborative care for depression yields similar improvement among older and younger rural adults.

BACKGROUND: Depressive disorders are among the most prevalent mental health conditions; however, significant barriers to treatment access persist. This study examined differences in depression outcomes between younger and older adults in a large-scale implementation demonstration of the collaborative care model (CoCM). METHODS: Secondary data analysis of a longitudinal, observational implementation demonstration at eight primary care clinics across low-resourced rural or frontier areas of the Western United States. Seven of these clinics were federally qualified health centers. The sample consisted of 3722 younger (18-64 years) and older (65+ years) adult primary care patients diagnosed with unipolar depression. All participants received depression treatment via CoCM, which enhances usual primary care and makes efficient use of specialists by using a behavioral healthcare manager and a psychiatric consultant to support primary care providers. Clinics were followed for up to 27 months. Patients were followed until they completed treatment or dropped out. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) assessed depressive symptoms at baseline (enrollment) and at most follow-up contacts. The primary treatment outcome was a change between a patient's first and last recorded PHQ-9 scores. RESULTS: Across both age groups, there was an average overall reduction of 6.9 points on the PHQ-9. Older adults demonstrated a greater decrease in depression scores of 2.06 points (95% CI -2.98 to -1.14, p < 0.001) on the PHQ-9 compared with younger adults. Estimates were robust when adjusting for gender, race, and clinic. CONCLUSIONS: CoCM resulted in meaningful improvement in depressive symptoms across age groups.

Assessing the Impact of Different Depression Treatment Success Metrics on Organizational Performance.

Objective: The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) is commonly used to assess depression symptoms, but its associated treatment success criteria (i.e., metrics) are inconsistently defined. The authors aimed to analyze the impact of metric choice on outcomes and discuss implications for clinical practice and research. Methods: Analyses included three overlapping and nonexclusive time cohorts of adult patients with depression treated in 33 organizations between 2008 and 2018. Average depression improvement rates were calculated according to eight metrics. Organization-level rank orders defined by these metrics were calculated and correlated. Results: The 12-month cohort had higher rates of metrics indicating treatment success than did the 3- and 6-month cohorts; the degree of improvement varied by metric, although all organization-level rank orders were highly correlated. Conclusions: Different PHQ-9 treatment metrics are associated with disparate improvement rates. Organization-level rankings defined by different metrics are highly correlated. Consistency of metric use may be more important than specific metric choice.

Rural clinics implementing collaborative care for low-income patients can achieve comparable or better depression outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: The gap between depression treatment needs and the available mental health workforce is particularly large in rural areas. Collaborative care (CoCM) is an evidence-based approach that leverages limited mental health specialists for maximum population effect. This study evaluates depression treatment outcomes, clinical processes of care, and primary care provider experiences for CoCM implementation in 8 rural clinics treating low-income patients. METHOD: We used CoCM registry data to analyze depression response and remission then used logistic regression to model variance in depression outcomes. Primary care providers reported their experiences with this practice change 18 months following program launch. RESULTS: Participating clinics enrolled 5,187 adult patients, approximately 15% of the adult patient population. Mean PHQ-9 depression score was 16.1 at baseline and 10.9 at last individual measurement, a statistically and clinically significant improvement (SD6.7; 95% CI [4.9, 5.3]). Suicidal ideation also reduced significantly. Multivariate logistic regression predicted the probability of depression response and remission after controlling for several demographic attributes and processes of care, showing a significant amount of variance in outcomes could be explained by clinic, length of time in treatment, and age. Primary care providers reported positive experiences overall. DISCUSSION: Three quarters of participating primary care clinics, adapting CoCM for limited resource settings, exceeded depression response outcomes reported in a controlled research trial and mirrored results of large-scale quality improvement implementations. Future research should examine quality improvement strategies to address clinic-level variation and sustain improvements in clinical outcomes achieved. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Implementing collaborative care to reduce depression for rural native American/Alaska native people.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to identify the effects of Collaborative Care on rural Native American and Alaska Native (AI/AN) patients. METHODS: Collaborative Care was implemented in three AI/AN serving clinics. Clinic staff participated in training and coaching designed to facilitate practice change. We followed clinics for 2 years to observe improvements in depression treatment and to examine treatment outcomes for enrolled patients. Collaborative Care elements included universal screening for depression, evidence-based treatment to target, use of behavioral health care managers to deliver the intervention, use of psychiatric consultants to provide caseload consultation, and quality improvement tracking to improve and maintain outcomes. We used t-tests to evaluate the main effects of Collaborative Care and used multiple linear regression to better understand the predictors of success. We also collected qualitative data from members of the Collaborative Care clinical team about their experience. RESULTS: The clinics participated in training and practice coaching to implement Collaborative Care for depressed patients. Depression response (50% or greater reduction in depression symptoms as measured by the PHQ-9) and remission (PHQ-9 score less than 5) rates were equivalent in AI/AN patients as compared with White patients in the same clinics. Significant predictors of positive treatment outcome include only one depression treatment episodes during the study and more follow-up visits per patient. Clinicians were overall positive about their experience and the effect on patient care in their clinic. CONCLUSIONS: This project showed that it is possible to deliver Collaborative Care to AI/AN patients via primary care settings in rural areas.