Practice-Based Versus Telemedicine-Based Collaborative Care for Depression in Rural Federally Qualified Health Centers: A Pragmatic Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial.

(Reprinted with permission from American Journal of Psychiatry 2013; 170:414-425).

Cost-effectiveness of on-site versus off-site collaborative care for depression in rural FQHCs.

OBJECTIVE: Collaborative care for depression in primary care settings is effective and cost-effective. However, there is minimal evidence to support the choice of on-site versus off-site models. This study examined the cost-effectiveness of on-site practice-based collaborative care (PBCC) versus off-site telemedicine-based collaborative care (TBCC) for depression in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). METHODS: In a multisite, randomized, pragmatic comparative cost-effectiveness trial, 19,285 patients were screened for depression, 2,863 (14.8%) screened positive, and 364 were enrolled. Telephone interview data were collected at baseline and at six, 12, and 18 months. Base case analysis used Arkansas FQHC health care costs, and secondary analysis used national cost estimates. Effectiveness measures were depression-free days and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from depression-free days, the 12-Item Short-Form Survey, and the Quality of Well-Being (QWB) Scale. Nonparametric bootstrap with replacement methods were used to generate an empirical joint distribution of incremental costs and QALYs and acceptability curves. RESULTS: The TBCC intervention resulted in more depression-free days and QALYs but at a greater cost than the PBCC intervention. The disease-specific (depression-free day) and generic (QALY) incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were below their respective ICER thresholds for implementation, suggesting that the TBCC intervention was more cost effective than the PBCC intervention. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the cost-effectiveness of TBCC in medically underserved primary care settings. Information about whether to insource (make) or outsource (buy) depression care management is important, given the current interest in patient-centered medical homes, value-based purchasing, and bundled payments for depression care.

Practice-based versus telemedicine-based collaborative care for depression in rural federally qualified health centers: a pragmatic randomized comparative effectiveness trial.

OBJECTIVE: Practice-based collaborative care is a complex evidence-based practice that is difficult to implement in smaller primary care practices that lack on-site mental health staff. Telemedicine-based collaborative care virtually co-locates and integrates mental health providers into primary care settings. The objective of this multisite randomized pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial was to compare the outcomes of patients assigned to practice-based and telemedicine-based collaborative care. METHOD: From 2007 to 2009, patients at federally qualified health centers serving medically underserved populations were screened for depression, and 364 patients who screened positive were enrolled and followed for 18 months. Those assigned to practice-based collaborative care received evidence-based care from an on-site primary care provider and a nurse care manager. Those assigned to telemedicine-based collaborative care received evidence-based care from an on-site primary care provider and an off-site team: a nurse care manager and a pharmacist by telephone, and a psychologist and a psychiatrist via videoconferencing. The primary clinical outcome measures were treatment response, remission, and change in depression severity. RESULTS: Significant group main effects were observed for both response (odds ratio=7.74, 95% CI=3.94-15.20) and remission (odds ratio=12.69, 95% CI=4.81-33.46), and a significant overall group-by-time interaction effect was observed for depression severity on the Hopkins Symptom Checklist, with greater reductions in severity over time for patients in the telemedicine-based group. Improvements in outcomes appeared to be attributable to higher fidelity to the collaborative care evidence base in the telemedicine-based group. CONCLUSIONS: Contracting with an off-site telemedicine-based collaborative care team can yield better outcomes than implementing practice-based collaborative care with locally available staff.

Partnership for implementation of evidence-based mental health practices in rural federally qualified health centers: theory and methods.

BACKGROUND: Mental health and substance abuse are among the most commonly reported reasons for visits to Federally Qualified Health Centers (CHCs), yet only 6.5% of encounters are with on-site behavioral health specialists. Rural CHCs are significantly less likely to have on-site behavioral specialists than urban CHCs. Because of this lack of mental health specialists in rural areas, the most promising approach to improving mental health outcomes is to help rural primary care (PC) providers deliver evidence-based practices (EBPs). Despite the scope of these problems, no research has developed an effective implementation strategy for facilitating the adoption of mental health EBPs for rural CHCs. We sought to describe the conceptual components of an implementation partnership that focuses on the adaption and adoption of mental health EBPs by rural CHCs in Arkansas. METHODS: We present a conceptual model that integrates seven separate frameworks: (1) Jones and Wells' Evidence-Based Community Partnership Model, (2) Kitson's Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARiHS) implementation framework, (3) Sackett's definition of evidence-based medicine, (4) Glisson's organizational social context model, (5) Rubenstein's Evidence-Based Quality Improvement (EBQI) facilitation process, (6) Glasgow's RE-AIM evaluation approach, and (7) Naylor's concept of shared decision making. CONCLUSIONS: By integrating these frameworks into a meaningful conceptual model, we hope to develop a successful implementation partnership between an academic health center and small rural CHCs to improve mental health outcomes. Findings from this implementation partnership should have relevance to hundreds of clinics and millions of patients, and could help promote the sustained adoption of EBPs across rural America.