OBJECTIVES: The effectiveness of treatments for youth depression in primary care, under usual practice conditions, is largely unstudied. This study aims at estimating the effect of "appropriate treatment," defined as treatment that approximates guideline standards, on clinical outcomes for depressed primary care youth patients by using observational analyses from a randomized trial. METHODS:Participants were 344 youths aged 13-21 enrolled in the Youth Partners in Care trial. Youths screening positive for depression from six primary care practices in five different health care organizations were randomly assigned to either (1) usual care enhanced by provider education on depression evaluation and management, or (2) a quality improvement (QI) intervention designed to improve access to antidepressant medications and/or cognitive behavior therapy for depression; usual practice conditions otherwise applied. Observational analysis was conducted on the effects of appropriate treatment (antidepressant medication use by algorithms or 6 or more psychotherapy visits) on severe depression (Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression score ≥ 24) at 6 months. Selection into treatment is accounted for by using instrumental variables analysis, with randomized QI intervention status as the instrument. RESULTS: At 6 months, youths receiving "appropriate treatment," compared with others, were significantly less likely to have severe depression (10.9% vs. 45.2%, p<0.0001). Similar findings were observed among youths with depressive disorders and sub-syndromal depressive symptoms, and among Latino and other youths. CONCLUSIONS: Among depressed primary care youths, care that approximates guideline standards but retains leniency substantially reduces the likelihood of severe depression at 6 months. Such findings apply to youths with or without depressive disorder, and among Latino youth.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The effectiveness of treatments for youth depression in primary care, under usual practice conditions, is largely unstudied. This study aims at estimating the effect of "appropriate treatment," defined as treatment that approximates guideline standards, on clinical outcomes for depressed primary care youth patients by using observational analyses from a randomized trial. METHODS:Participants were 344 youths aged 13-21 enrolled in the Youth Partners in Care trial. Youths screening positive for depression from six primary care practices in five different health care organizations were randomly assigned to either (1) usual care enhanced by provider education on depression evaluation and management, or (2) a quality improvement (QI) intervention designed to improve access to antidepressant medications and/or cognitive behavior therapy for depression; usual practice conditions otherwise applied. Observational analysis was conducted on the effects of appropriate treatment (antidepressant medication use by algorithms or 6 or more psychotherapy visits) on severe depression (Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression score ≥ 24) at 6 months. Selection into treatment is accounted for by using instrumental variables analysis, with randomized QI intervention status as the instrument. RESULTS: At 6 months, youths receiving "appropriate treatment," compared with others, were significantly less likely to have severe depression (10.9% vs. 45.2%, p<0.0001). Similar findings were observed among youths with depressive disorders and sub-syndromal depressive symptoms, and among Latino and other youths. CONCLUSIONS: Among depressed primary care youths, care that approximates guideline standards but retains leniency substantially reduces the likelihood of severe depression at 6 months. Such findings apply to youths with or without depressive disorder, and among Latino youth.
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: Michael Schoenbaum; Jürgen Unützer; Daniel McCaffrey; Naihua Duan; Cathy Sherbourne; Kenneth B Wells Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: S M Horwitz; K Hoagwood; A R Stiffman; T Summerfeld; J R Weisz; E J Costello; K Rost; D L Bean; L Cottler; P J Leaf; M Roper; G Norquist Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: C W Hughes; G J Emslie; M L Crismon; K D Wagner; B Birmaher; B Geller; S R Pliszka; N D Ryan; M Strober; M H Trivedi; M G Toprac; A Sedillo; M E Llana; M Lopez; A J Rush Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 8.829
Authors: John March; Susan Silva; Stephen Petrycki; John Curry; Karen Wells; John Fairbank; Barbara Burns; Marisa Domino; Steven McNulty; Benedetto Vitiello; Joanne Severe Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-08-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Laura Mufson; Kristen Pollack Dorta; Priya Wickramaratne; Yoko Nomura; Mark Olfson; Myrna M Weissman Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2004-06
Authors: Karen Dineen Wagner; Adelaide S Robb; Robert L Findling; Jianqing Jin; Marcelo M Gutierrez; William E Heydorn Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Lawrence S Wissow; Jonathan Brown; Kate E Fothergill; Anne Gadomski; Karen Hacker; Peter Salmon; Rachel Zelkowitz Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2013-08-30 Impact factor: 8.829
Authors: Valerie L Forman-Hoffman; Jennifer Cook Middleton; Joni L McKeeman; Leyla F Stambaugh; Robert B Christian; Bradley N Gaynes; Heather Lynne Kane; Leila C Kahwati; Kathleen N Lohr; Meera Viswanathan Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2017-07-24 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Shelley Reetz; Gregory Clarke; Robin Weersing; Nader Amir; John Dickerson; Frances L Lynch; Michael C Leo; Andreea M Rawlings; Mi H Lee; Sara Gille Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2019-10-22 Impact factor: 3.630