Annie LeBlanc1, Jeph Herrin2, Mark D Williams3, Jonathan W Inselman4, Megan E Branda4, Nilay D Shah5, Emma M Heim6, Sara R Dick6, Mark Linzer7, Deborah H Boehm7, Kristen M Dall-Winther8, Marc R Matthews9, Kathleen J Yost10, Kathryn K Shepel11, Victor M Montori12. 1. Division of Health Care Policy and Research, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota2Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota3Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Mayo Clinic Center for the Scie. 2. Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut5Health Research & Educational Trust, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 4. Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 5. Division of Health Care Policy and Research, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota2Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 6. Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 7. Division of General Internal Medicine, Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 8. Department of Family Medicine, Mayo Clinic Health Systems-Franciscan Healthcare, La Crosse, Wisconsin. 9. Department of Family Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 10. Division of Health Care Policy and Research, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 11. Media Support Services Division, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 12. Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota12Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: For antidepressants, the translation of evidence of comparative effectiveness into practice is suboptimal. This deficit directly affects outcomes and quality of care for patients with depression. To overcome this problem, we developed the Depression Medication Choice (DMC) encounter decision aid, designed to help patients and clinicians consider the available antidepressants and the extent to which they improved depression and other issues important to patients. OBJECTIVE: Estimate the effect of DMC on quality of the decision-making process and depression outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a cluster randomized trial of adults with moderate to severe depression considering treatment with an antidepressant. Primary care practices in 10 rural, suburban, and urban primary care practices across Minnesota and Wisconsin were randomly allocated to treatment of depression with or without use of the DMC decision aid. INTERVENTION: Depression Medication Choice, a series of cards, each highlighting the effect of the available options on an issue of importance to patients for use during face-to-face consultations. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Decision-making quality as judged by patient knowledge and involvement in decision making, patient and clinician decisional comfort (Decisional Conflict Scale) and satisfaction, encounter duration, medication adherence, depression symptoms, and the Patient Health Questionnaire for depression (PHQ-9). RESULTS:We enrolled 117 clinicians and 301 patients (67% women; mean [SD] age, 44 [15] years; mean [SD] PHQ-9 score, 15 [4]) into the trial. Compared with usual care (UC), use of DMC significantly improved patients' decisional comfort (DMC, 80% vs UC, 75%; P = .02), knowledge (DMC, 65% vs UC, 56%; P = .03), satisfaction (risk ratio [RR], from 1.25 [P = .81] to RR, 2.4 [P = .002] depending on satisfaction domain), and involvement (DMC, 47% vs UC, 33%; P<.001). It also improved clinicians' decisional comfort (DMC, 80% vs UC, 68%; P < .001) and satisfaction (RR, 1.64; P = .02). There were no differences in encounter duration, medication adherence, or improvement of depression control between arms. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The DMC decision aid helped primary care clinicians and patients with moderate to severe depression select antidepressants together, improving the decision-making process without extending the visit. On the other hand, DMC had no discernible effect on medication adherence or depression outcomes. By translating comparative effectiveness into patient-centered care, use of DMC improved the quality of primary care for patients with depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01502891.
RCT Entities:
IMPORTANCE: For antidepressants, the translation of evidence of comparative effectiveness into practice is suboptimal. This deficit directly affects outcomes and quality of care for patients with depression. To overcome this problem, we developed the Depression Medication Choice (DMC) encounter decision aid, designed to help patients and clinicians consider the available antidepressants and the extent to which they improved depression and other issues important to patients. OBJECTIVE: Estimate the effect of DMC on quality of the decision-making process and depression outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a cluster randomized trial of adults with moderate to severe depression considering treatment with an antidepressant. Primary care practices in 10 rural, suburban, and urban primary care practices across Minnesota and Wisconsin were randomly allocated to treatment of depression with or without use of the DMC decision aid. INTERVENTION: Depression Medication Choice, a series of cards, each highlighting the effect of the available options on an issue of importance to patients for use during face-to-face consultations. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Decision-making quality as judged by patient knowledge and involvement in decision making, patient and clinician decisional comfort (Decisional Conflict Scale) and satisfaction, encounter duration, medication adherence, depression symptoms, and the Patient Health Questionnaire for depression (PHQ-9). RESULTS: We enrolled 117 clinicians and 301 patients (67% women; mean [SD] age, 44 [15] years; mean [SD] PHQ-9 score, 15 [4]) into the trial. Compared with usual care (UC), use of DMC significantly improved patients' decisional comfort (DMC, 80% vs UC, 75%; P = .02), knowledge (DMC, 65% vs UC, 56%; P = .03), satisfaction (risk ratio [RR], from 1.25 [P = .81] to RR, 2.4 [P = .002] depending on satisfaction domain), and involvement (DMC, 47% vs UC, 33%; P<.001). It also improved clinicians' decisional comfort (DMC, 80% vs UC, 68%; P < .001) and satisfaction (RR, 1.64; P = .02). There were no differences in encounter duration, medication adherence, or improvement of depression control between arms. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The DMC decision aid helped primary care clinicians and patients with moderate to severe depression select antidepressants together, improving the decision-making process without extending the visit. On the other hand, DMC had no discernible effect on medication adherence or depression outcomes. By translating comparative effectiveness into patient-centered care, use of DMC improved the quality of primary care for patients with depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01502891.
Authors: Martin Härter; Isaac Bermejo; Günter Ollenschläger; Frank Schneider; Wolfgang Gaebel; Ulrich Hegerl; Wilhelm Niebling; Mathias Berger Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2005-10-31 Impact factor: 2.038
Authors: Audrey J Weymiller; Victor M Montori; Lesley A Jones; Amiram Gafni; Gordon H Guyatt; Sandra C Bryant; Teresa J H Christianson; Rebecca J Mullan; Steven A Smith Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2007-05-28
Authors: Neil M Davies; David Gunnell; Kyla H Thomas; Chris Metcalfe; Frank Windmeijer; Richard M Martin Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2013-09-24 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Kirk D Wyatt; Megan E Branda; Ryan T Anderson; Laurie J Pencille; Victor M Montori; Erik P Hess; Henry H Ting; Annie LeBlanc Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2014-02-22 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Patrick J Raue; Herbert C Schulberg; Martha L Bruce; Samprit Banerjee; Amanda Artis; Maria Espejo; Idalia Catalan; Sara Romero Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Katarina Arandjelovic; Harris A Eyre; Eric Lenze; Ajeet B Singh; Michael Berk; Chad Bousman Journal: J Neural Transm (Vienna) Date: 2017-10-29 Impact factor: 3.575
Authors: Ryan Abbott; Donald D Chang; Harris A Eyre; Chad A Bousman; David A Merrill; Helen Lavretsky Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2017-05-25 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Marleen Kunneman; Megan E Branda; Ian G Hargraves; Angela L Sivly; Alexander T Lee; Haeshik Gorr; Bruce Burnett; Takeki Suzuki; Elizabeth A Jackson; Erik Hess; Mark Linzer; Sarah R Brand-McCarthy; Juan P Brito; Peter A Noseworthy; Victor M Montori Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2020-07-20 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Jo Anne Sirey; Samprit Banerjee; Patricia Marino; Martha L Bruce; Ashley Halkett; Molly Turnwald; Claire Chiang; Brian Liles; Amanda Artis; Fred Blow; Helen C Kales Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Claudia Caroline Dobler; Manuel Sanchez; Michael R Gionfriddo; Neri A Alvarez-Villalobos; Naykky Singh Ospina; Gabriela Spencer-Bonilla; Bjorg Thorsteinsdottir; Raed Benkhadra; Patricia J Erwin; Colin P West; Juan P Brito; Mohammad Hassan Murad; Victor M Montori Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2018-10-09 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Nathalie Moise; Louise Falzon; Megan Obi; Siqin Ye; Sapana Patel; Christopher Gonzalez; Kelsey Bryant; Ian M Kronish Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-08-14 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Naykky Singh Ospina; Kari A Phillips; Rene Rodriguez-Gutierrez; Ana Castaneda-Guarderas; Michael R Gionfriddo; Megan E Branda; Victor M Montori Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-07-02 Impact factor: 5.128