M Valenstein1, M Klinkman, S Becker, F C Blow, K L Barry, A Sattar, E Hill. 1. Serious Mental Illness Treatment Research and Evaluation Center, Health Services Research and Development, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113-0170, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In randomized controlled trials, patients with major depression who receive broad-based collaborative treatment by both primary care physicians (PCPs) and mental health providers (MHPs) have better outcomes than patients who receive usual care. However, little is known about the concurrent treatment of patients with depression in the community. This study describes the perceptions of PCPs of the frequency of concurrent treatment in community settings, the degree of collaboration between co-treating providers, and factors associated with greater interaction and collaboration. METHODS: A survey was distributed to a stratified, random sample of 276 eligible family physicians in Michigan. Primary analyses were descriptive statistics (point estimation) of PCP practice patterns. Secondary analyses explored predictors of collaboration with multivariable regression. RESULTS: A total of 162 eligible PCPs (59%) returned the survey. PCPs reported that they co-treated approximately 30% of their depressed patients with MHPs. They made contact with co-treating MHPs in approximately 50% of shared cases; however, provider contact seldom included joint treatment planning. PCPs perceived collaborative treatments to be more problematic when patients were enrolled in managed care programs. In multivariable regression, co-location of MHP and PCP practices (in the same building) was strongly associated with increased interaction and collaboration (P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent treatment of depressed patients is common in the community, but these treatments are less interactive and collaborative than the treatment models proven effective in randomized controlled trails. If concurrent treatments are to become more collaborative-with regular contact and effective communication-co-location of practices appears important.
BACKGROUND: In randomized controlled trials, patients with major depression who receive broad-based collaborative treatment by both primary care physicians (PCPs) and mental health providers (MHPs) have better outcomes than patients who receive usual care. However, little is known about the concurrent treatment of patients with depression in the community. This study describes the perceptions of PCPs of the frequency of concurrent treatment in community settings, the degree of collaboration between co-treating providers, and factors associated with greater interaction and collaboration. METHODS: A survey was distributed to a stratified, random sample of 276 eligible family physicians in Michigan. Primary analyses were descriptive statistics (point estimation) of PCP practice patterns. Secondary analyses explored predictors of collaboration with multivariable regression. RESULTS: A total of 162 eligible PCPs (59%) returned the survey. PCPs reported that they co-treated approximately 30% of their depressedpatients with MHPs. They made contact with co-treating MHPs in approximately 50% of shared cases; however, provider contact seldom included joint treatment planning. PCPs perceived collaborative treatments to be more problematic when patients were enrolled in managed care programs. In multivariable regression, co-location of MHP and PCP practices (in the same building) was strongly associated with increased interaction and collaboration (P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent treatment of depressedpatients is common in the community, but these treatments are less interactive and collaborative than the treatment models proven effective in randomized controlled trails. If concurrent treatments are to become more collaborative-with regular contact and effective communication-co-location of practices appears important.
Authors: Richard L Kravitz; Peter Franks; Mitchell Feldman; Lisa S Meredith; Ladson Hinton; Carol Franz; Paul Duberstein; Ronald M Epstein Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Angela M Gerolamo; Jung Y Kim; Jonathan D Brown; James Schuster; Jane Kogan Journal: J Behav Health Serv Res Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 1.505
Authors: Jerusha B Detweiler-Bedell; Michael A Friedman; Howard Leventhal; Ivan W Miller; Elaine A Leventhal Journal: Clin Psychol Rev Date: 2008-09-09