Bring It Up: An Adapted Collaborative Care Model for Depression in a Safety-Net Primary Care Clinic.

Objective: Over 90 clinical trials demonstrate the efficacy of the collaborative care model (CoCM) to treat depression in primary care but there is significant variability in real-world CoCM implementation and scalability. This study aimed to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of an adapted CoCM in a safety-net primary care setting. Methods: Bring It Up! (BIU) is a pilot trial comparing an adapted CoCM (intervention group) to usual care (historical controls) for primary care safety-net clinic patients with depression. Inclusion criteria: (1) age ≥18; (2) Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) score ≥10; and (3) major depressive disorder diagnosis. Patients who completed ≥6 months of treatment upon rolling enrollment (April 1, 2018-October 31, 2019) were included. Historical controls completed ≥6 months of usual care in 2017. BIU included all aspects of CoCM except accountable care and leveraged existing staff rather than a dedicated care manager. The primary outcome was depression remission (PHQ-9 <5) within 6 months. Secondary outcomes included depression response, adherence to treatment guidelines and care coordination process. Data were extracted from the electronic health record. Results: Thirty-six patients received the intervention; 41 controls received usual care. Depression remission was achieved in 33.3% of intervention patients and 0% of controls (p = 0.001). Of intervention patients, 44.4% achieved ≥50% reduction in PHQ-9 compared to 4.9% of controls (p = 0.003). Further, 66.7% of intervention patients had guideline-recommended antidepressant medication titration compared to 26.9% of controls (p = 0.003); 94.4% of intervention patients had PHQ-9 repeated compared to 53.7% of controls (p < 0.001). Conclusions: An adapted CoCM was feasible and improved depression care in a safety-net clinic.

Field Visit Contact Rate by Mobile Crisis Teams as a Crisis System Performance Metric.

OBJECTIVE: The authors investigated associations between rates of contact with individuals in distress during field visits by mobile crisis teams and client and referral source characteristics. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study of an urban mobile crisis program, call logs (N=2,581) were coded for whether an attempted field visit resulted in a client evaluation. Logistic regression analyses examined potential associations with client age, gender, race-ethnicity, primary language, living situation, insurance, and referral source. RESULTS: Contact was made with 77% of adults and 97% of children referred to mobile crisis teams. Field visit contact rates differed by age. Unsuccessful visits were more likely when the referral source was from institutional settings than from individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-quarter of attempted field visits with adults by an urban mobile crisis team were not completed, particularly among referrals from institutional settings. As mobile crisis services proliferate, field visit contact rate could be a key performance metric for these critical services.

Gender Differences in National Institutes of Health Grant Submissions Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Introduction: Emerging data suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted women in academic medicine, potentially eliminating recent gains that have been made toward gender equity. This study examined possible pandemic-related gender disparities in research grant submissions, one of the most important criteria for academic promotion and tenure evaluations. Methods: Data were collected from two major academic institutions (one private and one public) on the gender and academic rank of faculty principal investigators who submitted new grants to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) during COVID-19 (March 1st, 2020, through August 31, 2020) compared with a matched period in 2019 (March 1st, 2019, through August 31, 2019). t-Tests and chi-square analyses compared the gender distribution of individuals who submitted grants during the two periods of examination. Results: In 2019 (prepandemic), there was no significant difference in the average number of grants submitted by women compared with men faculty. In contrast, women faculty submitted significantly fewer grants in 2020 (during the pandemic) than men. Men were also significantly more likely than women to submit grants in both 2019 and 2020 compared with submitting in 2019 only, suggesting men faculty may have been more likely than their women colleagues to sustain their productivity in grant submissions during the pandemic. Discussion: Women's loss of extramural funding may compound over time, as it impedes new data collection, research progress, and academic advancement. Efforts to support women's research productivity and career trajectories are urgently needed in the following years of pandemic recovery.