Improving primary care for depression in late life: the design of a multicenter randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Late life depression can be successfully treated with antidepressant medications or psychotherapy, but few depressed older adults receive effective treatment. RESEARCH DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial of a disease management program for late life depression. SUBJECTS: Approximately 1,750 older adults with major depression or dysthymia are recruited from seven national study sites. INTERVENTION: Half of the subjects are randomly assigned to a collaborative care program where a depression clinical specialist supervised by a psychiatrist and a primary care expert supports the patient's regular primary care provider to treat depression. Intervention services are provided for 12 months using antidepressant medications and Problem Solving Treatment in Primary Care according to a stepped care protocol that varies intervention intensity according to clinical needs. The other half of the subjects are assigned to care as usual. EVALUATION: Subjects are independently assessed at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, and 24 months. The evaluation assesses the incremental cost-effectiveness of the intervention compared with care as usual. Specific outcomes examined include care for depression, depressive symptoms, health-related quality of life, satisfaction with depression care, health care costs, patient time costs, market and nonmarket productivity, and household income. CONCLUSIONS: The study blends methods from health services and clinical research in an effort to protect internal validity while maximizing the generalizability of results to diverse health care systems. We hope that this study will show the cost-effectiveness of a new model of care for late life depression that can be applied in a range of primary care settings.

Using data to enhance the expert panel process. Rating indications of alcohol-related problems in older adults.

OBJECTIVE: To enhance the validity of a well-known expert panel process, we used data from patient surveys to identify and correct rating errors. METHODS: We used the two-round RAND/UCLA panel method to rate indications of harmful (presence of problems), hazardous (at risk for problems), and nonhazardous (no known risks) drinking in older adults. Results from the panel provided guidelines for classifying older individuals as harmful, hazardous, or nonhazardous drinkers, using a survey. The classifications yielded unexpectedly high numbers of harmful and hazardous drinkers. We hypothesized possible misclassifications of drinking risks and used the survey data to identify indications that may have led to invalid ratings. We modified problematic indications and asked three clinician panelists to evaluate the clinical usefulness of the modifications in a third panel round. We revised the indications based on panelist response and reexamined drinking classifications. RESULTS: Using the original indications, 48% of drinkers in the sample were classified as harmful, 31% as hazardous, and 21% as nonhazardous. A review of the indications revealed framing bias in the original rating task and vague definitions of certain symptoms and conditions. The modified indications resulted in classifications of 22% harmful, 47% hazardous, and 31% nonhazardous drinkers. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of survey data led to identification and correction of specific errors occurring during the panel-rating process. The validity of the RAND/UCLA method can be enhanced using data-driven modifications.

A new paradigm for alcohol use in older persons.

BACKGROUND: Current paradigms for conceptualizing alcohol-related problems typically focus on persons who are abusing or dependent on alcohol. These paradigms may not apply to older drinkers whose alcohol use, regardless of consumption-level, can cause problems because of age-related changes in physiology and interactions with increased morbidity, medication use, and functional limitations. OBJECTIVE: We convened an expert panel# to develop clinical indications of harmful, hazardous, and nonhazardous drinking in persons 65 years of age and older. RESEARCH DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: Nine panelists with expertise in psychiatry, geriatrics, internal medicine, and alcohol research were provided with epidemiological data and a published explicit literature review of alcohol use in the elderly. The RAND/UCLA two-round panel method was used to develop the indications. After the second round, the authors wrote a draft statement that was circulated to the panelists whose comments were incorporated into a final document. RESULTS: Panelists agreed on 215 scenarios in which older peoples' use of alcohol either alone or in the presence of chronic medical conditions, medication use, symptoms, smoking, and functional limitations are hazardous or harmful. Panelists' ratings of risk did not differ significantly between persons aged 65 to 74 years and those aged 75 years and older. CONCLUSION: Alcohol use may be hazardous or harmful for older persons, particularly in conjunction with physical or emotional illnesses, medication use, functional limitations, smoking, and driving after drinking. When asking about alcohol use in older persons, clinicians need to be aware of these factors to assist in identifying and managing potential or actual alcohol-related problems.