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).

Work productivity loss from depression: evidence from an employer survey.

BACKGROUND: National working groups identify the need for return on investment research conducted from the purchaser perspective; however, the field has not developed standardized methods for measuring the basic components of return on investment, including costing out the value of work productivity loss due to illness. Recent literature is divided on whether the most commonly used method underestimates or overestimates this loss. The goal of this manuscript is to characterize between and within variation in the cost of work productivity loss from illness estimated by the most commonly used method and its two refinements. METHODS: One senior health benefit specialist from each of 325 companies employing 100+ workers completed a cross-sectional survey describing their company size, industry and policies/practices regarding work loss which allowed the research team to derive the variables needed to estimate work productivity loss from illness using three methods. Compensation estimates were derived by multiplying lost work hours from presenteeism and absenteeism by wage/fringe. Disruption correction adjusted this estimate to account for co-worker disruption, while friction correction accounted for labor substitution. The analysis compared bootstrapped means and medians between and within these three methods. RESULTS: The average company realized an annual $617 (SD = $75) per capita loss from depression by compensation methods and a $649 (SD = $78) loss by disruption correction, compared to a $316 (SD = $58) loss by friction correction (p < .0001). Agreement across estimates was 0.92 (95% CI 0.90, 0.93). CONCLUSION: Although the methods identify similar companies with high costs from lost productivity, friction correction reduces the size of compensation estimates of productivity loss by one half. In analyzing the potential consequences of method selection for the dissemination of interventions to employers, intervention developers are encouraged to include friction methods in their estimate of the economic value of interventions designed to improve absenteeism and presenteeism. Business leaders in industries where labor substitution is common are encouraged to seek friction corrected estimates of return on investment. Health policy analysts are encouraged to target the dissemination of productivity enhancing interventions to employers with high losses rather than all employers. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01013220.

Intervention impact on depression product appraisal and purchasing behavior by employers: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Employers can purchase high quality depression products that provide the type, intensity and duration of depression care management shown to improve work outcomes sufficiently for many employers to achieve a return on investment. The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to test an intervention to encourage employers to purchase a high quality depression product for their workforce. METHODS: Twenty nine organizations recruited senior health benefit professional members representing public or private employers who had not yet purchased a depression product for all 100+ workers in their company. The research team used randomization blocked by company size to assign eligible employers to: (1) a presentation encouraging employers to purchase a high quality depression product accompanied by a scientifically-derived return on investment estimate, or (2) a presentation encouraging employers to work with their most subscribed health plan to improve depression treatment quality indicators. Two hundred ninety three employers (82.3% of 356) completed baseline data immediately before learning that 140 employers had been randomized to the evidence-based (EB) depression product presentation and 153 had been randomized to the usual care (UC) depression treatment quality indicator presentation. Analysis of 250 (85.3% of 293) employers who completed web-based interviews at 12 and/or 24 months was conducted to determine presentation impact on depression product appraisal and purchasing behavior. RESULTS: The intervention had no impact on depression product appraisal in 232 subjects (F = 2.36, p = .07) or depression product purchasing (chisquare = 1.82, p = .44) in 250 subjects. Depression product appraisal increased in companies with greater health benefit generosity whose benefit professionals were male. Depression product purchasing behavior increased in small companies compared to large companies, companies who knew a vendor that sold depression products at baseline, companies with greater health benefit risk taking, and companies with less politicalization of health care benefit decision making. CONCLUSIONS: Policy makers need to build innovative bridges to the employer community to convince them to purchase evidence-based benefits, even when benefits offer potential financial savings. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01013220.

Do employers know the quality of health care benefits they provide? Use of HEDIS depression scores for health plans.

OBJECTIVE Dissemination of health quality measures is a necessary ingredient of efforts to harness market-based forces, such as value-based purchasing by employers, to improve health care quality. This study examined reporting of Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measures for depression to firms interested in improving depression care. METHODS During surveys conducted between 2009 and 2011, a sample of 325 employers that were interested in improving depression treatment were asked whether their primary health plan reports HEDIS scores for depression to the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) and if so, whether they knew the scores. Data about HEDIS reporting by the health plans were collected from the NCQA. RESULTS HEDIS depression scores were reported by the primary health plans of 154 (47%) employers, but only 7% of employers knew their plan's HEDIS scores. Because larger employers were more likely to report knowing the scores, 53% of all employees worked for employers who reported knowing the scores. A number of structural, health benefit, and need characteristics predicted knowledge of HEDIS depression scores by employers. CONCLUSIONS The study demonstrated that motivated employers did not know their depression HEDIS scores even when their plan publicly reported them. Measures of health care quality are not reaching the buyers of insurance products; however, larger employers were more likely to know the HEDIS scores for their health plan, suggesting that value-based purchasing may have some ability to affect health care quality.

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.

Electronic medical record availability and primary care depression treatment.

BACKGROUND: Electronic medical records (EMR) are commonly believed to improve quality of care. Primary care patients with multiple chronic conditions have potentially greater opportunity to benefit from receiving care at practices with EMRs if these systems help coordinate complex care. OBJECTIVE: To examine how chronic conditions impact the odds that depressed patients receive depression treatment in primary care practices with EMRs compared to practices without EMRs. DESIGN: The study uses logistic regression to analyze cross-sectional data of primary care physician office visits in freestanding, office-based practices from the 2006-2008 National Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys. PATIENTS: All visits to primary care providers made by patients ages 18 and older with physician-identified depression (N = 3,467). MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes include depression treatment which is defined as receipt or ordering of antidepressant medication and/or mental health counseling. KEY RESULTS: EMRs were associated with significantly lowered odds that depressed patients received depression treatment (OR = 0.75, p = 0.009, 95% CI: 0.61-0.93); however when stratified by the number of chronic conditions, this association was observed only in patients with three or more chronic conditions (OR = 0.50, p > 0.001, 95% CI: 0.36-0.70). EMRs did not have a significant association with depression treatment for patients with two or fewer chronic conditions. CONCLUSIONS: EMRs appear to have an unintended negative association with depression care provided during visits made by primary care patients with multiple chronic conditions.

Depression care management: can employers purchase improved outcomes?

Fourteen vendors are currently selling depression care management products to US employers after randomized trials demonstrate improved work outcomes. The research team interviewed 10 (71.4%) of these vendors to compare their products to four key components of interventions demonstrated to improve work outcomes. Five of 10 depression products incorporate all four key components, three of which are sold by health maintenance organizations (HMOs); however, HMOs did not deliver these components at the recommended intensity and/or duration. Only one product delivered by a disease management company delivered all four components of care at the recommended intensity and duration. This "voltage drop," which we anticipate will increase with product implementation, suggests that every delivery system should carefully evaluate the design of its depression product before implementation for its capacity to deliver evidence-based care, repeating these evaluations as new evidence emerges.

Potential disparities in the management of schizophrenia in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated whether outpatient visits to psychiatrists and primary care physicians (family physicians, general internists, or general practitioners) by individuals with schizophrenia differed in antipsychotic medication management and subsequent hospitalization by age, gender, race-ethnicity, insurance, rurality, and region. METHODS: Data for the study were from office visit forms completed between 1999 and 2007 by physicians in the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. A total of 3,359 outpatient visits by individuals with a diagnosis of schizophrenia were identified. The research team used four logistic regression models to test the relationship of sociodemographic variables to antipsychotic medication management during the visit and to hospitalization after the visit. The four models controlled for available clinical covariates with or without physician specialty in the entire cohort and in the cohort of visits in which patients had no active psychotic symptoms. RESULTS: In at least three of the four models, the research team observed that visits by non-Hispanic black patients had significantly (p<.05) greater odds of involving antipsychotic medication management than visits by non-Hispanic whites (range of odds ratios [ORs] 1.66 to 1.88) and of resulting in hospitalization (range of ORs, 3.52 to 6.95). In all four models, visits by patients who lacked insurance were significantly less likely to result in hospitalization than visits by patients who had private insurance (OR=<.001 in all models). CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide the first national evidence of potential treatment disparities for schizophrenia. Further research is needed to definitively identify disparities and to understand their causes and consequences.

Gender differences in hospitalization after emergency room visits for depressive symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Depressed women have greater than three times the odds of hospitalization as clinically comparable men. The objective of this study is to understand if these gender differences emerge in admissions decisions after depressed individuals' arrival at the emergency room (ER). METHODS: We used multivariate logistic regression to examine gender differences in hospitalization after 6266 ER visits for depressive symptoms in the nationally representative 1998-2007 National Hospital Ambulatory Care Medical Survey. RESULTS: ER visits by depressed women have only 0.82 the odds of hospitalization (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-0.96, p=0.02) in models adjusted for sociodemographic, clinical, and system covariates. Sensitivity analyses demonstrate gender differences in visits by patients with no injury but not in visits by patients with self-inflicted injury. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that admission decisions after ER visits are not responsible for the increased risk of hospitalization previously reported in depressed women, as ER visits by women with depressive symptoms actually have lower odds of hospitalization than visits by men. We encourage further research to explore the causes and consequences of this practice pattern to move toward rational delivery systems committed to providing comparable treatment to clinically comparable individuals regardless of gender.

Stakeholder benefit from depression disease management: differences by rurality?

Despite increasing consensus about the value of depression disease management programs, the field has not identified which stakeholders should absorb the relatively small additional costs associated with these programs. This paper investigates whether two proposed stakeholders (health plans and employer purchasers) economically benefit from depression care management (reduced outpatient utilization and work costs, respectively) in two delivery systems (rural and urban). This study examined the main and differential effects of depression care management on outpatient utilization and work costs over 24 months in a preplanned secondary analysis of 479 depressed patients from rural and urban primary care practices in a randomized controlled trial. Over 24 months, the intervention did not significantly reduce outpatient utilization costs in the entire cohort (-$191, 95% confidence interval (CI)=-$2,083 to $1,647), but it did decrease work costs (-$1,970, 95% CI=-$3,934 to -$92). While not statistically significant, rural-urban differences in work costs were in the same direction, while rural-urban differences in utilization costs differed in direction. These findings provide preliminary evidence that employers who elect to cover depression care management costs should receive comparable economic benefits in the rural and urban employees they insure. Given the limited sample size, further research may be needed to determine whether health plans who elect to cover depression care management costs will receive comparable economic benefits in the rural and urban enrollees they insure.

Pilot study of a preliminary criterion standard for prescription opioid misuse.

Multidisciplinary experts created a behaviorally defined preliminary criterion standard definition of probable prescription opioid misuse (PPOM) that could be rated from material found in administrative, pharmacy, and electronic health record databases. They then derived a scoring system to identify PPOM patients requiring referral to a specialist. Experts next rated cases of misuse and nonmisuse. Rater no. 1 correctly differentiated 37 of 40 cases (92.5%); kappa coefficient was .79 (CI: .57, 1.00). Rater no. 2 correctly identified 39 of 40 cases (97.5%); kappa was .94 (CI: .81, 1.00). Kappa for comparing raters was .73 (CI: .49, .98). This preliminary study demonstrates that multidisciplinary raters can use behaviorally based criteria to identify patients with known PPOM from health plan databases.

Marketing depression care management to employers: design of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials demonstrate that depression care management can improve clinical and work outcomes sufficiently for selected employers to realize a return on investment. Employers can now purchase depression products that provide depression care management, defined as employee screening, education, monitoring, and clinician feedback for all depressed employees. We developed an intervention to encourage employers to purchase a depression product that offers the type, intensity, and duration of care management shown to improve clinical and work outcomes. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial conducted with 360 employers of 30 regional business coalitions, the research team proposes to compare the impact of a value-based marketing intervention to usual-care marketing on employer purchase of depression products. The study will also identify mediators and organizational-level moderators of intervention impact. Employers randomized to the value-based condition receive a presentation encouraging them to purchase depression products scientifically shown to benefit the employee and the employer. Employers randomized to the usual-care condition receive a presentation encouraging them to monitor and improve quality indicators for outpatient depression treatment. Because previous research demonstrates that the usual-care intervention will have little to no impact on employer purchasing, depression product purchasing rates in the usual-care condition capture vendor efforts to market depression products to employers in both conditions while the value-based intervention is being conducted. Employers in both conditions are also provided free technical assistance to undertake the actions each presentation encourages. The research team will use intent-to-treat models of all available data to evaluate intervention impact on the purchase of depression products using a cumulative incidence analysis of 12- and 24-month data. DISCUSSION: By addressing the 'value to whom?' question, the study advances knowledge about one of the most pivotal problems in the translation of evidence-based care to 'real world' settings: whether purchasers can be influenced to buy healthcare products on the basis of value and not exclusively on the basis of cost. If value-based marketing increases depression product purchase rates over usual care, this study will provide encouragement to market new healthcare products on the basis of the product's value to the purchaser as well as the recipient of care. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01013220.

Primary care physicians treat somatization.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that somatizing patients managed by primary care physicians (PCP) would improve with a relationship-based intervention. METHODS: We randomized 30 adults with medically unexplained symptoms to treatment or usual care. Four PCPs were trained to intervene with cognitive-behavioral, pharmacological, and patient-centered management and deployed the intervention with seven scheduled visits over 12 months. Outcomes obtained at baseline and 12 months were: Mental component summary (MCS), the primary endpoint, and measures of physical and psychological symptoms and of satisfaction with the PCP. RESULTS: Patients averaged 52.5 years; 83.3% were female; 79.6% were black. Using a difference of differences approach, we found that the intervention produced a large effect size (ES) (0.82; CI: 0.08 to 1.57) for the MCS in the predicted direction, similar to the ES for physical (-0.80; CI: -1.55 to -0.04) and psychological (-1.06; CI: -1.83 to -0.28) improvement and for increased satisfaction with the PCP (0.94; CI: 0.15 to 1.74). Using ANCOVA in a sensitivity analysis, we found that the ES fell slightly (0.59), while other measures were unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-large effect sizes support the hypothesis that PCPs can effectively treat somatization. This points to the importance of performing a full RCT.

Diagnostic accuracy of predicting somatization from patients' ICD-9 diagnoses.

OBJECTIVES: To hypothesize in a new and different population that administrative database (ADB) screening would identify somatizing patients by increasing numbers of visits, female gender, and greater percent of International Classification of Diseases, 9th Edition (ICD-9) primary diagnosis codes in musculoskeletal, nervous, gastrointestinal (GI), and ill-defined body systems. We labeled these codes as having "somatization potential." Our earlier study demonstrated that ICD-9 codes and other data from the ADB effectively identified somatization. METHODS: Using a prospective observational design in a staff model health maintenance organization, we evaluated 1364 patients aged 18 to 65 years who had > or =8 visits yearly in the 2 years before study. Clinician raters applied a reliable method of medical chart review to identify patients meeting the criteria for somatization. We randomly selected 2/3 for the derivation set (n = 901) for logistic regression to evaluate the contribution of potential ADB correlates (age, gender, all encounters, primary diagnosis codes (ICD-9), revenue codes, and charges) of a diagnosis of somatization. This prediction rule was then applied to the remaining 1/3 of subjects, the validation set (n = 463). RESULTS: Patients averaged 47.1 years, 12.8 visits per year, and 71.6% were female; 319 had somatization. Age, visits, and somatization potential were associated with clinician-rated somatization, with a c-statistic 0.72 in the derivation set and 0.68 in the validation set. CONCLUSIONS: These data support our earlier findings that selected ICD-9 diagnoses in the ADB predict somatization, suggesting their potential in identifying a common, costly, and usually unrecognized problem.

Disability from depression: the public health challenge to primary care.

Epidemiologists have identified that depression will soon be the leading cause of disability throughout the world. To inform public health campaigns to reduce this problem, this paper summarizes current scientific knowledge about optimizing the potential of primary care settings to reduce disability by providing effective treatment for depression. To meet this challenge, primary care practices need to be re-engineered: 1) to conduct systematic screening programs to identify depressed patients, 2) to provide depressed patients initial evidence-based treatment, and 3) to monitor treatment adherence and symptom response in treated patients over 2 years. While additional research is needed in developing countries, preliminary evidence indicates that primary care practices re-engineered to improve depression management can make a substantial contribution to reducing depression-associated disability.

Alcohol use, comorbidities, and receptivity to treatment in Hispanic farmworkers in primary care.

Primary care is a promising setting for alcohol screening and intervention with low-income Hispanic farmworkers, yet no research has been conducted that estimates the prevalence of harmful and hazardous drinking, psychiatric comorbidities, or receptivity to treatment in this population. This study investigates rates of alcohol misuse, depression, anxiety, somatization, and cigarette use in a convenience sample of low-income Hispanic farmworkers and farmworker spouses in Florida making walk-in visits to a rural community health center. Results indicated a high prevalence of alcohol use but also a strong willingness to receive treatment. Forty-four percent (44%) screened positive for harmful and hazardous alcohol use; over half (58%) screened positive for one or more comorbidity risks. Receptivity to alcohol treatment was high (75%). These results strongly support the need for and potential utility of alcohol intervention in primary care for this population.

Clinician burden and depression treatment: disentangling patient- and clinician-level effects of medical comorbidity.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to improve primary care depression treatment have assessed strategies across heterogeneous groups of patients, but few have examined clinician-level influences on depression treatment. OBJECTIVE: To examine clinician characteristics that affect depression treatment in primary care settings, using multilevel ordinal regression modeling to disentangle patient- from clinician-level effects. DESIGN: Secondary analysis from the Quality Improvement in Depression Study dataset. PARTICIPANTS: The participants were 1,023 primary care patients with depression who reported on treatment in the 6-month follow-up and whose clinicians (n = 158) had at least 4 patients in the study. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome variable was depression treatment intensity, derived from assessment of concordance with AHCPR depression treatment guidelines based on patient-reported data on their treatment. Primary independent variable was clinical practice burden for treating depression, derived from patient- and clinician-reported composite measures tested for significant association with clinician-reported practice burden. RESULTS: Clinicians who treat patients with more chronic medical comorbidities perceive less burden from treating depressed patients in their practice (Spearman's rho = -.30, p < .05). Clinicians who treat patients with more chronic medical comorbidities also provide greater intensity of depression treatment (adjusted OR = 1.44, p = .02), even after adjusting for the effects of patient-level chronic medical comorbidities (adjusted OR = 0.95, p = .45). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians who provide more chronic care also provide greater depression treatment intensity, suggesting that clinicians who care for complex patients can integrate depression care into their practice. Targeting interventions to these clinicians to enhance their ability to provide guideline-concordant depression care is a worthwhile endeavor and deserves further investigation.

Testing for statistical discrimination by race/ethnicity in panel data for depression treatment in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To test for discrimination by race/ethnicity arising from clinical uncertainty in treatment for depression, also known as "statistical discrimination." DATA SOURCES: We used survey data from 1,321 African-American, Hispanic, and white adults identified with depression in primary care. Surveys were administered every six months for two years in the Quality Improvement for Depression (QID) studies. STUDY DESIGN: To examine whether and how change in depression severity affects change in treatment intensity by race/ethnicity, we used multivariate cross-sectional and change models that difference out unobserved time-invariant patient characteristics potentially correlated with race/ethnicity. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Treatment intensity was operationalized as expenditures on drugs, primary care, and specialty services, weighted by national prices from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Patient race/ethnicity was collected at baseline by self-report. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Change in depression severity is less associated with change in treatment intensity in minority patients than in whites, consistent with the hypothesis of statistical discrimination. The differential effect by racial/ethnic group was accounted for by use of mental health specialists. CONCLUSIONS: Enhanced physician-patient communication and use of standardized depression instruments may reduce statistical discrimination arising from clinical uncertainty and be useful in reducing racial/ethnic inequities in depression treatment.

The effect of adherence to practice guidelines on depression outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have assessed clinician adherence to depression practice guidelines and the relationship between clinician adherence and depression outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To estimate how frequently specific guideline recommendations are followed and to assess whether following guideline recommendations is linked to improved depression outcomes. DESIGN: Observational analysis of data collected from 1996 to 1998 in 3 randomized clinical trials. SETTING: 45 primary care practices in 13 U.S. states. PATIENTS: 1131 primary care patients with depression. MEASUREMENTS: Expert panel methods were used to develop a patient survey-based index that measured adherence to clinical practice guidelines on depression. Rates of adherence to the 20 indicators that form the index were evaluated. Multivariable regression that controlled for case mix was used to assess how index scores predicted continuous and dichotomous depression measures at 12, 18, and 24 months. RESULTS: Quality of care was high (clinician adherence > or =79%) for 6 indicators, including primary care clinician detection of depression. Quality of care was low (adherence, 20% to 38%) for 8 indicators, including management of suicide risk (3 indicators), alcohol abuse (2 indicators), and elderly patients; assessment of symptoms and history of depression; and treatment adjustment for patients who did not respond to initial treatment. Greater adherence to practice guidelines significantly predicted fewer depressive symptoms on continuous measures (P < 0.001 for 12 months, P < 0.01 for 18 months, and P < 0.001 for 24 months) and dichotomous measures (P < 0.05 for 18 and 24 months). LIMITATIONS: Data are based on patient self-report. Possible changes in practice since 1998 may limit the generalizability of the findings. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to guidelines was high for one third of the recommendations that were measured but was very low for nearly half of the measures, pointing to specific needs for quality improvement. Guideline-concordant depression care appears to be linked to improved outcomes in primary care patients with depression.

Predicting outcomes of primary care patients with major depression: development of a depression prognosis index.

OBJECTIVE: Depression research and practice focus increasingly on diverse patient populations with varying probabilities of response to clinical care. Prognostic indices use preexisting patient characteristics to estimate the probability of subsequent negative clinical outcomes and are useful tools for improving the study and care of diverse populations. Few such measures, however, have been developed for mental health conditions. This study developed and validated a depression prognosis measure for primary care patients with major depression. METHODS: Consecutive patients in 108 primary care practices were screened for depression, and 1,471 with major depression were enrolled. A Depression Prognosis Index (DPI) predicting persistent depression six months after baseline was developed for a random one-third subsample and validated with the remaining two-thirds. Models included prior treatment, demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and other physical, psychological, and social predictors. RESULTS: Sixty-four percent to 65% of patients classified by baseline DPI score as being in the sample quartile with the worst prognosis had probable major depression six months later, compared with 14% to 15% in the best-prognosis quartile. The DPI had an R2 of .40 in the development sample and .27 in the validation sample. Important predictors included severity of depression symptoms at baseline, social support, common physical symptoms, and having completed three months of antidepressants at sample entry. CONCLUSIONS: The ability of the DPI to predict six-month outcomes compares favorably to that of prognostic indices for general medical problems. These results validate the DPI and provide conceptual guidance for further development of depression risk stratification instruments for clinical and research use.