OBJECTIVE: To determine the long term effectiveness of collaborative care management for depression in late life. DESIGN: Two arm, randomised, clinical trial; intervention one year and follow-up two years. SETTING: 18 primary care clinics in eight US healthcare organisations. Patients 1801 primary care patients aged 60 and older with major depression, dysthymia, or both. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to a 12 month collaborative care intervention (IMPACT) or usual care for depression. Teams including a depression care manager, primary care doctor, and psychiatrist offered education, behavioural activation, antidepressants, a brief, behaviour based psychotherapy (problem solving treatment), and relapse prevention geared to each patient's needs and preferences. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Interviewers, blinded to treatment assignment, conducted interviews in person at baseline and by telephone at each subsequent follow up. They measured depression (SCL-20), overall functional impairment and quality of life (SF-12), physical functioning (PCS-12), depression treatment, and satisfaction with care. RESULTS: IMPACT patients fared significantly (P < 0.05) better than controls regarding continuation of antidepressant treatment, depressive symptoms, remission of depression, physical functioning, quality of life, self efficacy, and satisfaction with care at 18 and 24 months. One year after IMPACT resources were withdrawn, a significant difference in SCL-20 scores (0.23, P < 0.0001) favouring IMPACT patients remained. CONCLUSIONS: Tailored collaborative care actively engages older adults in treatment for depression and delivers substantial and persistent long term benefits. Benefits include less depression, better physical functioning, and an enhanced quality of life. The IMPACT model may show the way to less depression and healthier lives for older adults.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine the long term effectiveness of collaborative care management for depression in late life. DESIGN: Two arm, randomised, clinical trial; intervention one year and follow-up two years. SETTING: 18 primary care clinics in eight US healthcare organisations. Patients 1801 primary care patients aged 60 and older with major depression, dysthymia, or both. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to a 12 month collaborative care intervention (IMPACT) or usual care for depression. Teams including a depression care manager, primary care doctor, and psychiatrist offered education, behavioural activation, antidepressants, a brief, behaviour based psychotherapy (problem solving treatment), and relapse prevention geared to each patient's needs and preferences. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Interviewers, blinded to treatment assignment, conducted interviews in person at baseline and by telephone at each subsequent follow up. They measured depression (SCL-20), overall functional impairment and quality of life (SF-12), physical functioning (PCS-12), depression treatment, and satisfaction with care. RESULTS: IMPACT patients fared significantly (P < 0.05) better than controls regarding continuation of antidepressant treatment, depressive symptoms, remission of depression, physical functioning, quality of life, self efficacy, and satisfaction with care at 18 and 24 months. One year after IMPACT resources were withdrawn, a significant difference in SCL-20 scores (0.23, P < 0.0001) favouring IMPACT patients remained. CONCLUSIONS: Tailored collaborative care actively engages older adults in treatment for depression and delivers substantial and persistent long term benefits. Benefits include less depression, better physical functioning, and an enhanced quality of life. The IMPACT model may show the way to less depression and healthier lives for older adults.
Authors: K B Wells; C Sherbourne; M Schoenbaum; N Duan; L Meredith; J Unützer; J Miranda; M F Carney; L V Rubenstein Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-01-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: J Unützer; W Katon; J W Williams; C M Callahan; L Harpole; E M Hunkeler; M Hoffing; P Arean; M T Hegel; M Schoenbaum; S M Oishi; C A Langston Journal: Med Care Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: E M Hunkeler; J F Meresman; W A Hargreaves; B Fireman; W H Berman; A J Kirsch; J Groebe; S W Hurt; P Braden; M Getzell; P A Feigenbaum; T Peng; M Salzer Journal: Arch Fam Med Date: 2000-08
Authors: C D Sherbourne; K B Wells; N Duan; J Miranda; J Unützer; L Jaycox; M Schoenbaum; L S Meredith; L V Rubenstein Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2001-07
Authors: Christopher M Callahan; Frederick W Unverzagt; Siu L Hui; Anthony J Perkins; Hugh C Hendrie Journal: Med Care Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Robin R Whitebird; Leif I Solberg; Nancy A Jaeckels; Pamela B Pietruszewski; Senka Hadzic; Jürgen Unützer; Kris A Ohnsorg; Rebecca C Rossom; Arne Beck; Kenneth E Joslyn; Lisa V Rubenstein Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Antonia F H Smelt; Gerda M van der Weele; Jeanet W Blom; Jacobijn Gussekloo; Willem J J Assendelft Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Brian J Lichtenstein; David B Reuben; Arun S Karlamangla; Weijuan Han; Carol P Roth; Neil S Wenger Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Carmen García-Peña; Fernando A Wagner; Sergio Sánchez-Garcia; Teresa Juárez-Cedillo; Claudia Espinel-Bermúdez; José Juan García-Gonzalez; Katia Gallegos-Carrillo; Francisco Franco-Marina; Joseph J Gallo Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-09-26 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Judith Fifield; Deborah Dauser Forrest; Joseph A Burleson; Melanie Martin-Peele; William Gillespie Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-03-02 Impact factor: 5.128