OBJECTIVE:Older adults with low incomes rarely use mental health care, and untreated depression is a serious problem in this population. This study examined whether a collaborative care model for depression in primary care would increase use of depression treatment and treatment outcomes for low-income elderly adults as well as for higher-income older adults. METHODS: A multisite randomized clinical trial that included 1,801 adults aged 60 years and older who were diagnosed as having depression compared collaborative care for depression with treatment as usual in primary care. Participants were divided into groups by income definitions on the basis of criteria used by the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). A total of 315 participants (18%) were living below the poverty level by the U.S. Census criteria, 261 (15%) were living below 30% of the area median income (AMI) (HUD criteria) but above poverty, 438 (24%) were living between 30% and 50% of the AMI, 327 (18%) were living between 50% and 80% of the AMI, and 460 (26%) were not poor. The income groups were compared on service use, satisfaction, depression severity, and physical health at baseline and at three, six, and 12 months after being randomly assigned to collaborative care or usual care. RESULTS: The benefits for low-income older adults were similar to those for middle- and higher-income older adults. At 12 months, intervention patients in all economic brackets had significantly greater rates of depression care for both antidepressant medication and psychotherapy, greater satisfaction, lower depression severity, and less health-related functional impairment than usual care participants. CONCLUSIONS:Lower-income older adults can experience benefits from collaborative management of depression in primary care similar to those of higher-income older adults, although they may require up to a year to reap physical health benefits.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Older adults with low incomes rarely use mental health care, and untreated depression is a serious problem in this population. This study examined whether a collaborative care model for depression in primary care would increase use of depression treatment and treatment outcomes for low-income elderly adults as well as for higher-income older adults. METHODS: A multisite randomized clinical trial that included 1,801 adults aged 60 years and older who were diagnosed as having depression compared collaborative care for depression with treatment as usual in primary care. Participants were divided into groups by income definitions on the basis of criteria used by the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). A total of 315 participants (18%) were living below the poverty level by the U.S. Census criteria, 261 (15%) were living below 30% of the area median income (AMI) (HUD criteria) but above poverty, 438 (24%) were living between 30% and 50% of the AMI, 327 (18%) were living between 50% and 80% of the AMI, and 460 (26%) were not poor. The income groups were compared on service use, satisfaction, depression severity, and physical health at baseline and at three, six, and 12 months after being randomly assigned to collaborative care or usual care. RESULTS: The benefits for low-income older adults were similar to those for middle- and higher-income older adults. At 12 months, intervention patients in all economic brackets had significantly greater rates of depression care for both antidepressant medication and psychotherapy, greater satisfaction, lower depression severity, and less health-related functional impairment than usual care participants. CONCLUSIONS: Lower-income older adults can experience benefits from collaborative management of depression in primary care similar to those of higher-income older adults, although they may require up to a year to reap physical health benefits.
Authors: Wayne Katon; Joan Russo; Susan D Reed; Carmen A Croicu; Evette Ludman; Anna LaRocco; Jennifer L Melville Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2014-10-31 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Kathleen Ell; Bin Xie; Brenda Quon; David I Quinn; Megan Dwight-Johnson; Pey-Jiuan Lee Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-09-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: María P Aranda; David H Chae; Karen D Lincoln; Robert Joseph Taylor; Amanda Toler Woodward; Linda M Chatters Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2011-10-28 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Lisa Saldana; Ian Bennett; Diane Powers; Mindy Vredevoogd; Tess Grover; Holle Schaper; Mark Campbell Journal: Adm Policy Ment Health Date: 2020-03
Authors: Yuhua Bao; George S Alexopoulos; Lawrence P Casalino; Thomas R Ten Have; Julie M Donohue; Edward P Post; Bruce R Schackman; Martha L Bruce Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2011-06
Authors: Stephen E Gilman; Garrett M Fitzmaurice; Martha L Bruce; Thomas Ten Have; M Maria Glymour; Hannah Carliner; George S Alexopoulos; Benoit H Mulsant; Charles F Reynolds; Alex Cohen Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Alex Cohen; Stephen E Gilman; Patricia R Houck; Katalin Szanto; Charles F Reynolds Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 2008-09-25 Impact factor: 4.328
Authors: Greer Sullivan; Cathy Sherbourne; Denise A Chavira; Michelle G Craske; Daniela Gollineli; Xiaotong Han; Raphael D Rose; Alexander Bystritsky; Murray B Stein; Peter Roy-Byrne Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 18.112