Life Events, Barriers to Care, and Outcomes Among Minority Women Experiencing Depression: A Longitudinal, Mixed-Method Examination.

ABSTRACT: The long-term course of depression is not well-understood among minority women. We assessed depression trajectory, barriers to depression care, and life difficulties among minority women accessing health and social service programs as part of the Community Partners in Care study. Data include surveys ( N = 339) and interviews ( n = 58) administered at 3-year follow-up with African American and Latina women with improved versus persistent depression. The majority of the sample reported persistent depression (224/339, 66.1%), ≥1 barrier to mental health care (226/339, 72.4%), and multiple life difficulties (mean, 2.7; SD, 2.3). Many barriers to care ( i.e. , related to stigma and care experience, finances, and logistics) and life difficulties ( i.e. , related to finances, trauma, and relationships) were more common among individuals reporting persistent depression. Results suggest the importance of past experiences with depression treatment, ongoing barriers to care, and negative life events as contributors to inequities in depression outcomes experienced by minority women.

Engaging Community Networks to Improve Depression Services: A Cluster-Randomized Trial of a Community Engagement and Planning Intervention.

This paper explores the effects of a group-randomized controlled trial, Community Partners in Care (CPIC), on the development of interagency networks for collaborative depression care improvement between a community engagement and planning (CEP) intervention and a resources for services (RS) intervention that provided the same content solely via technical assistance to individual programs. Both interventions consisted of a diverse set of service agencies, including health, mental health, substance abuse treatment, social services, and community-trusted organizations such as churches and parks and recreation centers. Participants in the community councils for the CEP intervention reflected a range of agency leaders, staff, and other stakeholders. Network analysis of partnerships among agencies in the CEP versus RS condition, and qualitative analysis of perspectives on interagency network changes from multiple sources, suggested that agencies in the CEP intervention exhibited greater growth in partnership capacity among themselves than did RS agencies. CEP participants also viewed the coalition development intervention both as promoting collaboration in depression services and as a meaningful community capacity building activity. These descriptive results help to identify plausible mechanisms of action for the CPIC interventions and can be used to guide development of future community engagement interventions and evaluations in under-resourced communities.

Comparative Effectiveness of Coalitions Versus Technical Assistance for Depression Quality Improvement in Persons with Multiple Chronic Conditions.

Significance: Prior research suggests that Community Engagement and Planning (CEP) for coalition support compared with Resources for Services (RS) for program technical assistance to implement depression quality improvement programs improves 6- and 12-month client mental-health related quality of life (MHRQL); however, effects for clients with multiple chronic medical conditions (MCC) are unknown. Objective: To explore effectiveness of CEP vs RS in MCC and non-MCC subgroups. Design: Secondary analyses of a cluster-randomized trial. Setting: 93 health care and community-based programs in two neighborhoods. Participants: Of 4,440 clients screened, 1,322 depressed (Patient Health Questionnaire, PHQ8) provided contact information, 1,246 enrolled and 1,018 (548 with ≥3 MCC) completed baseline, 6- or 12-month surveys. Intervention: CEP or RS for implementing depression quality improvement programs. Outcomes and Analyses: Primary: depression (PHQ9 <10), poor MHRQL (Short Form Health Survey, SF-12<40); Secondary: mental wellness, good physical health, behavioral health hospitalization, chronic homelessness risk, work/workloss days, services use at 6 and 12 months. End-point regressions were used to estimate intervention effects on outcomes for subgroups with ≥3 MCC, non-MCC, and intervention-by-MCC interactions (exploratory). Results: Among MCC clients at 6 months, CEP vs RS lowered likelihoods of depression and poor MHRQL; increased likelihood of mental wellness; reduced work-loss days among employed and likelihoods of ≥4 behavioral-health hospitalization nights and chronic homelessness risk, while increasing faith-based and park community center depression services; and at 12 months, likelihood of good physical health and park community center depression services use (each P<.05). There were no significant interactions or primary outcome effects for non-MCC. Conclusions: CEP was more effective than RS in improving 6-month primary outcomes among depressed MCC clients, without significant interactions.

Community Partners in Care: 6- and 12-month Outcomes of Community Engagement versus Technical Assistance to Implement Depression Collaborative Care among Depressed Older Adults.

Objective: Community Partners in Care, a community-partnered, cluster-randomized trial with depressed clients from 95 Los Angeles health and community programs, examined the added value of a community coalition approach (Community Engagement and Planning [CEP]) versus individual program technical assistance (Resources for Services [RS]) to implement depression collaborative care in underserved communities. This exploratory subanalysis examines 6- and 12-month outcomes among CPIC participants aged >50 years. Design: Community-partnered, cluster-randomized trial conducted between April 2010 and March 2012. Setting: Hollywood-Metropolitan (HM) and South Los Angeles (SLA) Service Planning Areas (SPAs), Los Angeles, California. Participants: 394 participants aged >50 years with depressive symptoms (8-item Patient Health Questionnaire score ≥ 10). Intervention: A community-partnered multi-sector coalition approach (Community Engagement and Planning [CEP]) vs individual program technical assistance (Resources for Services [RS]) to implement depression collaborative care. Main Outcome Measures: Depressive symptoms (PHQ-8 score), mental health-related quality of life (MHRQL), community-prioritized outcomes including mental wellness, homelessness risk and physical activity, and services utilization. Results: At 6 months, CEP was more effective than RS at improving MHRQL and mental wellness among participants aged >50 years; no differences were found in the effects of CEP vs RS on other outcomes. No significant outcome differences between CEP and RS were found at 12 months. Conclusions: A multisector community coalition approach may offer additional benefits over individual program technical assistance to improve outcomes among depressed adults aged >50 years living in underserved communities.

Maintaining Internal Validity in Community Partnered Participatory Research: Experience from the Community Partners in Care Study.

Objective: With internal validity being a central goal of designed experiments, we seek to elucidate how community partnered participatory research (CPPR) impacts the internal validity of public health comparative-effectiveness research. Methods: Community Partners in Care (CPIC), a study comparing a community-coalition intervention to direct technical assistance for disseminating depression care to vulnerable populations, is used to illustrate design choices developed with attention to core CPPR principles. The study-design process is reviewed retrospectively and evaluated based on the resulting covariate balance across intervention arms and on broader peer-review assessments. Contributions of the CPIC Council and the study's design committee are highlighted. Results: CPPR principles contributed to building consensus around the use of randomization, creating a sampling frame, specifying geographic boundaries delimiting the scope of the investigation, grouping similar programs into pairs or other small blocks of units, collaboratively choosing random-number-generator seeds to determine randomized intervention assignments, and addressing logistical constraints in field operations. Study protocols yielded samples that were well-balanced on background characteristics across intervention arms. CPIC has been recognized for scientific merit, has drawn attention from policymakers, and has fueled ongoing research collaborations. Conclusions: Creative and collaborative fulfillment of CPPR principles reinforced the internal validity of CPIC, strengthening the study's scientific rigor by engaging complementary areas of knowledge and expertise among members of the investigative team.

Growing a Community-Academic Partnership: Lessons Learned in Forming a Qualitative Interview Team for the Community Partners in Care Study.

By engaging, partnering, and building trust with community members, research on vulnerable populations may offer opportunities to improve population health in communities that suffer from health disparities. While the literature on participatory and partnered approaches offers techniques and strategies for forming community-academic partnerships, less information is available about how partnerships can grow and evolve over time. In this article, we describe the expansion of a long-standing partnership that uses principles of community partnered participatory research (CPPR), a variant of community-based participatory research (CBPR). We outline the preparation and executive phases of conducting qualitative interviewing with highly vulnerable study participants who have already been participants in a longitudinal survey. We describe the challenges and concerns at each phase of the research and summarize some lessons learned. To grow and evolve, the partnership must constantly be reaffirmed in the experiences of new members.

Whole Person Care in Under-resourced Communities: Stakeholder Priorities at Long-Term Follow-Up in Community Partners in Care.

Objective: Depressed individuals may require help from different agencies to address health and social needs, but how such coordination occurs in under-resourced communities is poorly understood. This study sought to identify priorities of Latino and African American depressed clients, explore whether service providers understand client priorities, and describe how providers address them. Methods: Between October 2014 and February 2015, we interviewed 104 clients stratified by depression history and 50 representatives of different programs in health and social community agencies who participated in Community Partners in Care, a cluster-randomized trial of coalition-building approaches to delivering depression quality improvement programs. Clients were queried about their most pressing needs; program representatives identified their clients' needs and explained how they addressed them. Results: Physical and mental health were clients' top priorities, followed by housing, caring for and building relationships with others, and employment. While persistently depressed clients prioritized mental health, those with improved depression prioritized relationships with others. Program representatives identified housing, employment, mental health, and improving relationships with others as clients' top priorities. Needs assessment, client-centered services, and linkages to other agencies were main strategies used to address client needs. Conclusion: Depressed clients have multiple health and social needs, and program representatives in under-resourced communities understand the complexity of clients' needs. Agencies rely on needs assessment and referrals to meet their clients' needs, which enhances the importance of agency partnership in "whole person" initiatives. Our results illustrate agency capacity to adopt integrated care models that will address clients' multiple needs through multi-sector collaboration and describe potential strategies to help reach the goal of whole person care.

Participatory Technology Development to Enhance Community Resilience.

Objective: To assess the feasibility of a novel, partnered technology development process to co-create mobile health applications (apps) addressing community health priorities, using psychoeducation of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) principles for enhancing resilience as an example. Design: Stakeholder engagement, workgroups, pilot feasibility study using mixed methods during October 2013 through January 2016 over three phases: 1) defining the vision of the project and increasing technical capacity, 2) co-development and pilot testing of the app, and 3) planning for sustainability. Setting: An academic-community partnership in South Los Angeles, California. Participants: Eight stakeholders; 30 pilot participants from the community. Main Outcome Measures: Qualitative analysis of audio-recordings of the app development process and stakeholder interviews, surveys of stakeholders' perception of the development process, app use data, and feedback from pilot participants. Results: The participatory technology development process resulted in creation and pilot-testing of a resiliency-focused text messaging app. Of the 1,107 messages sent, 23 out of 30 (77%) app users responded to explore interactive content. Stakeholders reported increased perceived competency in creating mobile apps and that the process fostered a culture of co-leadership. There was also sustained engagement in mobile app development by stakeholders beyond the initial project period. Conclusions: This is the first study, to our knowledge, to demonstrate the feasibility of participatory technology development, an approach involving direct participation in the development, tailoring and maintenance of a mobile app by a broad set of stakeholders with high representation from racial/ethnic minorities from an under-resourced community. Participatory technology development is a promising approach for creating sustainable, relevant and engaging health technologies across different technological, clinical and community settings.

Comparative Effectiveness of Two Models of Depression Services Quality Improvement in Health and Community Sectors.

OBJECTIVE: The effectiveness of community coalition building and program technical assistance was compared in implementation of collaborative care for depression among health care and community sector clients. METHODS: In under-resourced communities, within 93 programs randomly assigned to coalition building (Community Engagement and Planning) or program technical assistance (Resources for Services) models, 1,018 clients completed surveys at baseline and at six, 12, or 36 months. Regression analysis was used to estimate intervention effects and intervention-by-sector interaction effects on depression, mental health-related quality of life, and community-prioritized outcomes and on services use. RESULTS: For outcomes, there were few significant intervention-by-sector interactions, and stratified findings suggested benefits of coalition building in both sectors. For services use, at 36 months, increases were found for coalition building in primary care visits, self-help visits, and appropriate treatment for community clients and in community-based services use for health care clients. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to program technical assistance, community coalition building benefited clients across sectors and shifted long-term utilization across sectors.

A Community-Partnered, Participatory, Cluster-Randomized Study of Depression Care Quality Improvement: Three-Year Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Community Partners in Care, a community-partnered, cluster-randomized trial with depressed clients from 93 Los Angeles health and community programs, examined the added value of a community coalition approach (Community Engagement and Planning [CEP]) versus individual program technical assistance (Resources for Services [RS]) for implementing depression quality improvement in underserved communities. CEP was more effective than RS in improving mental health-related quality of life, reducing behavioral health hospitalizations, and shifting services toward community-based programs at six months. At 12 months, continued evidence of improvement was found. This study examined three-year outcomes. METHODS: Among 1,004 participants with depression who were eligible for three-year follow-up, 600 participants from 89 programs completed surveys. Multiple regression analyses estimated intervention effects on poor mental health-related quality of life and depression, physical health-related quality of life, behavioral health hospital nights, and use of services. RESULTS: At three years, no differences were found in the effects of CEP versus RS on depression or mental health-related quality of life, but CEP had modest effects in improving physical health-related quality of life and reducing behavioral health hospital nights, and CEP participants had more social- and community-sector depression visits and greater use of mood stabilizers. Sensitivity analyses with longitudinal modeling reproduced these findings but found no significant differences between groups in change from baseline to three years. CONCLUSIONS: At three years, CEP and RS did not have differential effects on primary mental health outcomes, but CEP participants had modest improvements in physical health and fewer behavioral health hospital nights.

Participation in Training for Depression Care Quality Improvement: A Randomized Trial of Community Engagement or Technical Support.

OBJECTIVE: Community engagement and planning (CEP) could improve dissemination of depression care quality improvement in underresourced communities, but whether its effects on provider training participation differ from those of standard technical assistance, or resources for services (RS), is unknown. This study compared program- and staff-level participation in depression care quality improvement training among programs enrolled in CEP, which trained networks of health care and social-community agencies jointly, and RS, which provided technical support to individual programs. METHODS: Matched programs from health care and social-community service sectors in two communities were randomly assigned to RS or CEP. Data were from 1,622 eligible staff members from 95 enrolled programs. Primary outcomes were any staff trained (for programs) and total hours of training (for staff). Secondary staff-level outcomes were hours of training in specific depression collaborative care components. RESULTS: CEP programs were more likely than RS programs to participate in any training (p=.006). Within health care sectors, CEP programs were more likely than RS programs to participate in training (p=.016), but within social-community sectors, there was no difference in training by intervention. Among staff who participated in training, mean training hours were greater among CEP programs versus RS programs for any type of training (p<.001) and for training related to each component of depression care (p<.001) except medication management. CONCLUSIONS: CEP may be an effective strategy to promote staff participation in depression care improvement efforts in underresourced communities.

Community Partners in Care (CPIC): Video Summary of Rationale, Study Approach / Implementation, and Client 6-month Outcomes.

"Community Partners in Care (CPIC): Video Summary of Rationale, Study Approach / Implementation, and Client 6-month Outcomes" is a 2 minute, 46 second video summarizing the study rationale, study approach, and the 6-month outcomes. The video was produced by four agencies: Healthy African American Families II, a health advocacy organization in South Los Angeles; Behavioral Health Services, the largest substance/alcohol abuse service provider in LA County; UCLA; and RAND Health; contract filmmakers Eileen Cabiling and Joe Mango handled cinematography, editing, and video support. The individuals appearing in the video are key CPIC community and academic partners. The celebratory tone of the video is consistent with a Community Partnered Participatory Research approach, a local variant of participatory action research, where study findings are celebrated by the partners, and dissemination efforts include approaches intended for general audiences, especially from low-income, low-literacy, minority communities, in addition to traditional academic products like peer-reviewed scientific manuscripts. The CPIC video offers a community perspective on the study results to our partners, the general public, other scientists and policy makers. We designed the video to teach community and healthcare partners how to adapt and implement the CPIC depression care model and to offer other community -academic partnerships an example of a non-traditional product developed for dissemination from an NIH-funded research study.

Community-partnered research conference model: the experience of Community Partners in Care study.

THE PROBLEM: Conducting community-partnered research conferences is a powerful yet underutilized approach to translating research into practice and improving result dissemination and intervention sustainability strategies. Nonetheless, detailed descriptions of conference features and ways to use them in empirical research are rare. PURPOSE: We describe how community-partnered conferences may be integrated into research projects by using an example of Community Partners in Care (CPIC), a large, cluster-randomized, controlled, trial (RCT) that uses community-partnered participatory research (CPPR) principles. KEY POINTS: Our conceptual model illustrates the role community-partnered research conferences may play in three study phases and describes how different conference features may increase community engagement, build two-way capacity, and ensure equal project ownership. CONCLUSIONS: As the number of community-partnered studies grows, so too does the need for practical tools to support this work. Community-partnered research conferences may be effectively employed in translational research to increase two-way capacity building and promote long-term intervention success.