Pallavi Dham1,2, Sarah Colman1,2, Karen Saperson3, Carrie McAiney3, Lillian Lourenco1, Nick Kates3, Tarek K Rajji1,2. 1. 1 Division of Geriatric Psychiatry, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. 2 Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. 3 Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Neurosciences, Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the mode of implementation, clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and the factors influencing uptake and sustainability of collaborative care for psychiatric disorders in older adults. DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING: Primary care, home health care, seniors' residence, medical inpatient and outpatient. PARTICIPANTS: Studies with a mean sample age of 60 years and older. INTERVENTION: Collaborative care for psychiatric disorders. METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched up until October 2016. Individual randomized controlled trials and cohort, case-control, and health service evaluation studies were selected, and relevant data were extracted for qualitative synthesis. RESULTS: Of the 552 records identified, 53 records (from 29 studies) were included. Very few studies evaluated psychiatric disorders other than depression. The mode of implementation differed based on the setting, with beneficial use of telemedicine. Clinical outcomes for depression were significantly better compared with usual care across settings. In depression, there is some evidence for cost-effectiveness. There is limited evidence for improved dementia care and outcomes using collaborative care. There is a lack of evidence for benefit in disorders other than depression or in settings such as home health care and general acute inpatients. Attitudes and skill of primary care staff, availability of resources, and organizational support are some of the factors influencing uptake and implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care for depressive disorders is feasible and beneficial among older adults in diverse settings. There is a paucity of studies on collaborative care in conditions other than depression or in settings other than primary care, indicating the need for further evaluation.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the mode of implementation, clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and the factors influencing uptake and sustainability of collaborative care for psychiatric disorders in older adults. DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING: Primary care, home health care, seniors' residence, medical inpatient and outpatient. PARTICIPANTS: Studies with a mean sample age of 60 years and older. INTERVENTION: Collaborative care for psychiatric disorders. METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched up until October 2016. Individual randomized controlled trials and cohort, case-control, and health service evaluation studies were selected, and relevant data were extracted for qualitative synthesis. RESULTS: Of the 552 records identified, 53 records (from 29 studies) were included. Very few studies evaluated psychiatric disorders other than depression. The mode of implementation differed based on the setting, with beneficial use of telemedicine. Clinical outcomes for depression were significantly better compared with usual care across settings. In depression, there is some evidence for cost-effectiveness. There is limited evidence for improved dementia care and outcomes using collaborative care. There is a lack of evidence for benefit in disorders other than depression or in settings such as home health care and general acute inpatients. Attitudes and skill of primary care staff, availability of resources, and organizational support are some of the factors influencing uptake and implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care for depressive disorders is feasible and beneficial among older adults in diverse settings. There is a paucity of studies on collaborative care in conditions other than depression or in settings other than primary care, indicating the need for further evaluation.
Authors: Jürgen Unützer; Wayne Katon; Christopher M Callahan; John W Williams; Enid Hunkeler; Linda Harpole; Marc Hoffing; Richard D Della Penna; Polly Hitchcock Noël; Elizabeth H B Lin; Patricia A Areán; Mark T Hegel; Lingqi Tang; Thomas R Belin; Sabine Oishi; Christopher Langston Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-12-11 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: G Kominski; R Andersen; R Bastani; R Gould; C Hackman; D Huang; L Jarvik; A Maxwell; J Moye; E Olsen; R Rohrbaugh; J Rosansky; S Taylor; W Van Stone Journal: Med Care Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 2.983
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: Martha L Bruce; Patrick J Raue; Catherine F Reilly; Rebecca L Greenberg; Barnett S Meyers; Samprit Banerjee; Yolonda R Pickett; Thomas F Sheeran; Angela Ghesquiere; Diane M Zukowski; Vianca H Rosas; Jeanne McLaughlin; Lori Pledger; Joan Doyle; Pamela Joachim; Andrew C Leon Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Hillary R Bogner; Martha L Bruce; Charles F Reynolds; Benoit H Mulsant; Mark S Cary; Knashawn Morales; George S Alexopoulos Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: John W Williams; Wayne Katon; Elizabeth H B Lin; Polly H Nöel; Jason Worchel; John Cornell; Linda Harpole; Bridget A Fultz; Enid Hunkeler; Virginia S Mika; Jürgen Unützer Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-06-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Martha L Bruce; Thomas R Ten Have; Charles F Reynolds; Ira I Katz; Herbert C Schulberg; Benoit H Mulsant; Gregory K Brown; Gail J McAvay; Jane L Pearson; George S Alexopoulos Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-03-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Edmund F Chaney; Lisa V Rubenstein; Chuan-Fen Liu; Elizabeth M Yano; Cory Bolkan; Martin Lee; Barbara Simon; Andy Lanto; Bradford Felker; Jane Uman Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2011-10-27 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Angélique A A Gruters; Inez H G B Ramakers; Roy P C Kessels; Femke H Bouwman; Marcel G M Olde Rikkert; Marco M Blom; Marjolein E de Vugt; Frans R J Verhey Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2019-05-20 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Richard Shulman; Reenu Arora; Rose Geist; Amna Ali; Julia Ma; Elizabeth Mansfield; Sara Martel; Jane Sandercock; Judith Versloot Journal: Can Geriatr J Date: 2021-09-01
Authors: Meredith G Harris; Alan E Kazdin; Richard J Munthali; Daniel V Vigo; Irving Hwang; Nancy A Sampson; Ali Al-Hamzawi; Jordi Alonso; Laura Helena Andrade; Guilherme Borges; Brendan Bunting; Silvia Florescu; Oye Gureje; Elie G Karam; Sing Lee; Fernando Navarro-Mateu; Daisuke Nishi; Charlene Rapsey; Kate M Scott; Juan Carlos Stagnaro; Maria Carmen Viana; Bogdan Wojtyniak; Miguel Xavier; Ronald C Kessler Journal: Int J Ment Health Syst Date: 2022-01-29