PURPOSE: We sought to determine whether relationship style in patients with diabetes receiving depression treatment is associated with differential quality of care and depression outcomes. METHODS: From 9 health maintenance organization clinics, 324 primary care patients with diabetes and comorbid major depressionand/or dysthymia participated in the Pathways randomized controlled trial of collaborative care for depression (n = 160) versus usual care (n = 164). The intervention provided outreach, enhanced support of antidepressant medication use, and problem-solving treatment delivered by nurse case managers. Using attachment theory principles, we categorized patients as having an independent (n = 190) or interactive (n = 134) relationship style. We assessed whether patient relationship style moderated treatment group differences in quality of care and depression outcomes. RESULTS: Among independent relationship style patients, the intervention resulted in significantly greater satisfaction with depression care in the first 6 months and 47 more depression-free days (P < 0.0003) based on the Hopkins Symptom Checklist at 12 months, compared with usual care. There were no significant treatment group differences in satisfaction with care or depression outcomes among patients with interactive relationship style. Among patients receiving the intervention, those with an independent relationship style received significantly more problem-solving treatment sessions as compared with patients with an interactive relationship style. CONCLUSION: Among depressed patients with diabetes, the Pathways collaborative care intervention improved quality of care for depression compared with usual care in both relationship style groups but was associated with significantly better depressive outcomes and greater satisfaction with care compared with usual care in patients with independent but not interactive relationship style.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: We sought to determine whether relationship style in patients with diabetes receiving depression treatment is associated with differential quality of care and depression outcomes. METHODS: From 9 health maintenance organization clinics, 324 primary care patients with diabetes and comorbid major depression and/or dysthymia participated in the Pathways randomized controlled trial of collaborative care for depression (n = 160) versus usual care (n = 164). The intervention provided outreach, enhanced support of antidepressant medication use, and problem-solving treatment delivered by nurse case managers. Using attachment theory principles, we categorized patients as having an independent (n = 190) or interactive (n = 134) relationship style. We assessed whether patient relationship style moderated treatment group differences in quality of care and depression outcomes. RESULTS: Among independent relationship style patients, the intervention resulted in significantly greater satisfaction with depression care in the first 6 months and 47 more depression-free days (P < 0.0003) based on the Hopkins Symptom Checklist at 12 months, compared with usual care. There were no significant treatment group differences in satisfaction with care or depression outcomes among patients with interactive relationship style. Among patients receiving the intervention, those with an independent relationship style received significantly more problem-solving treatment sessions as compared with patients with an interactive relationship style. CONCLUSION: Among depressedpatients with diabetes, the Pathways collaborative care intervention improved quality of care for depression compared with usual care in both relationship style groups but was associated with significantly better depressive outcomes and greater satisfaction with care compared with usual care in patients with independent but not interactive relationship style.
Authors: J Randall Curtis; Paul S Ciechanowski; Lois Downey; Julia Gold; Elizabeth L Nielsen; Sarah E Shannon; Patsy D Treece; Jessica P Young; Ruth A Engelberg Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2012-07-06 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Heidi Bøgelund Frederiksen; Jakob Kragstrup; Birgitte Dehlholm-Lambertsen Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 2.581
Authors: Mark C Hornbrook; Christopher S Wendel; Stephen Joel Coons; Marcia Grant; Lisa J Herrinton; M Jane Mohler; Carol M Baldwin; Carmit K McMullen; Sylvan B Green; Andrea Altschuler; Susan M Rawl; Robert S Krouse Journal: Med Care Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Nancy K Grote; Susan J Spieker; Mary Jane Lohr; Sharon L Geibel; Holly A Swartz; Ellen Frank; Patricia R Houck; Wayne Katon Journal: Depress Anxiety Date: 2012-03-23 Impact factor: 6.505
Authors: David Moskowitz; Courtney Rees Lyles; Andrew J Karter; Nancy Adler; Howard H Moffet; Dean Schillinger Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2011-08-19
Authors: Nancy K Grote; Wayne J Katon; Mary Jane Lohr; Kathy Carson; Mary Curran; Erin Galvin; Joan E Russo; Marilyn Gregory Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2014-07-10 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Paul Ciechanowski; Joan Russo; Wayne J Katon; Elizabeth H B Lin; Evette Ludman; Susan Heckbert; Michael Von Korff; Lisa H Williams; Bessie A Young Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2009-12-10 Impact factor: 17.152