Primary care clinicians' recognition and management of depression: a model of depression care in real-world primary care practice.

BACKGROUND: Depression is prevalent in primary care (PC) practices and poses a considerable public health burden in the United States. Despite nearly four decades of efforts to improve depression care quality in PC practices, a gap remains between desired treatment outcomes and the reality of how depression care is delivered. OBJECTIVE: This article presents a real-world PC practice model of depression care, elucidating the processes and their influencing conditions. DESIGN: Grounded theory methodology was used for the data collection and analysis to develop a depression care model. Data were collected from 70 individual interviews (60 to 70 min each), three focus group interviews (n = 24, 2 h each), two surveys per clinician, and investigators' field notes on practice environments. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed for analysis. Surveys and field notes complemented interview data. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy primary care clinicians from 52 PC offices in the Midwest: 28 general internists, 28 family physicians, and 14 nurse practitioners. KEY RESULTS: A depression care model was developed that illustrates how real-world conditions infuse complexity into each step of the depression care process. Depression care in PC settings is mediated through clinicians' interactions with patients, practice, and the local community. A clinician's interactional familiarity ("familiarity capital") was a powerful facilitator for depression care. For the recognition of depression, three previously reported processes and three conditions were confirmed. For the management of depression, 13 processes and 11 conditions were identified. Empowering the patient was a parallel process to the management of depression. CONCLUSIONS: The clinician's ability to develop and utilize interactional relationships and resources needed to recognize and treat a person with depression is key to depression care in primary care settings. The interactional context of depression care makes empowering the patient central to depression care delivery.

Reinvention of depression instruments by primary care clinicians.

PURPOSE: Despite the sophisticated development of depression instruments during the past 4 decades, the critical topic of how primary care clinicians actually use those instruments in their day-to-day practice has not been investigated. We wanted to understand how primary care clinicians use depression instruments, for what purposes, and the conditions that influence their use. METHODS: Grounded theory method was used to guide data collection and analysis. We conducted 70 individual interviews and 3 focus groups (n = 24) with a purposeful sample of 70 primary care clinicians (family physicians, general internists, and nurse practitioners) from 52 offices. Investigators' field notes on office practice environments complemented individual interviews. RESULTS: The clinicians described occasional use of depression instruments but reported they did not routinely use them to aid depression diagnosis or management; the clinicians reportedly used them primarily to enhance patients' acceptance of the diagnosis when they anticipated or encountered resistance to the diagnosis. Three conditions promoted or reduced use of these instruments for different purposes: the extent of competing demands for the clinician's time, the lack of objective evidence of depression, and the clinician's familiarity with the patient. No differences among the 3 clinician groups were found for these 3 conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Depression instruments are reinvented by primary care clinicians in their real-world primary care practice. Although depression instruments were originally conceptualized for screening, diagnosing, or facilitating the management of depression, our study suggests that the real-world practice context influences their use to aid shared decision making-primarily to suggest, tell, or convince patients to accept the diagnosis of depression.

Treatment patterns and outcomes of depressed medically ill and non-medically ill patients in community psychiatric practice.

The prevalence of depression among the medically ill, the recognition of depression in general medical practice, and the association between depression and medical illness have all been a focus for research in recent years. Less is known about the process and outcomes of depression care in the medically ill compared with the non-medically ill, but some studies suggest that those with concomitant physical illness have poorer outcomes. In a study of community psychiatric practice, a sample of 53 patients with no medical comorbidity (NMI) was compared with 50 patients, categorized by higher (HMI) or lower (LMI) levels of physical comorbidity, approximately 5 months after beginning treatment for a current episode of major depression. No differences were found in treatments received or in mental health outcomes between the three groups. The HMI group showed greater impairment in social and occupational functioning at baseline and significantly greater improvement in these variables at follow-up. Since medical comorbidity does not appear to adversely affect treatment decisions or outcomes in community psychiatric practice, depressed, physically ill patients should be encouraged to seek treatment, regardless of their medical condition or level of disability.

The acceptability of treatment for depression among African-American, Hispanic, and white primary care patients.

BACKGROUND: Ethnic minority patients are less likely than white patients to receive guideline-concordant care for depression. It is uncertain whether racial and ethnic differences exist in patient beliefs, attitudes, and preferences for treatment. METHODS: A telephone survey was conducted of 829 adult patients (659 non-Hispanic whites, 97 African Americans, 73 Hispanics) recruited from primary care offices across the United States who reported 1 week or more of depressed mood or loss of interest within the past month and who met criteria for Major Depressive Episode in the past year. Within this cohort, we examined differences among African Americans, Hispanics, and whites in acceptability of antidepressant medication and acceptability of individual counseling. RESULTS: African Americans (adjusted OR, 0.30; 95% CI 0.19-0.48) and Hispanics (adjusted OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26-0.76) had lower odds than white persons of finding antidepressant medications acceptable. African Americans had somewhat lower odds (adjusted OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.35-1.12), and Hispanics had higher odds (adjusted OR, 3.26; 95% CI, 1.08-9.89) of finding counseling acceptable than white persons. Some negative beliefs regarding treatment were more prevalent among ethnic minorities; however adjustment for these beliefs did not explain differences in acceptability of treatment for depression. CONCLUSIONS: African Americans are less likely than white persons to find antidepressant medication acceptable. Hispanics are less likely to find antidepressant medication acceptable, and more likely to find counseling acceptable than white persons. Racial and ethnic differences in beliefs about treatment modalities were found, but did not explain differences in the acceptability of depression treatment. Clinicians should consider patients' cultural and social context when negotiating treatment decisions for depression. Future research should identify other attitudinal barriers to depression care among ethnic minority patients.

Research development mechanisms.

Studies designed to reduce the burden of affective disorders should apply and develop theories and methods from diverse social sciences that could strengthen current interventions. A series of papers from diverse fields, such as quality engineering, behavioral economics, etc. might be a needed first step. Methodological research on design strategies such as group-level randomized trials, or instrumental variables analyses are needed. Finaly, qualitative studies to understand diverse stakeholder views are also needed. To pursue these areas, interdisciplinary training programs are needed to develop skilled researchers to study communities and community-based delivery settings. New research infrastructures are needed to support community and research collaborations, as well as supporting development of new technologies to enable diffusion of care.