Charles R Jonassaint1,2, Bea Herbeck Belnap3,4, Yan Huang5,6, Jordan F Karp6,7, Kaleab Z Abebe5, Bruce L Rollman3. 1. Center for Behavioral Health and Smart Technology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. cjonassaint@pitt.edu. 2. School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. cjonassaint@pitt.edu. 3. Center for Behavioral Health and Smart Technology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 4. Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University of Göttingen Medical Center, Göttingen, Germany. 5. Center for Research on Health Care Data Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 6. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 7. Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center at VA Pittsburgh Health System, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Computerized cognitive behavioral therapy (cCBT) can improve mental health outcomes in White populations; however, it is unknown whether racial and ethnic minority populations receive clinical benefits from cCBT. OBJECTIVE: To study race differences in the impact of cCBT use on mental health outcomes among White and African American primary care patients. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a three-arm randomized controlled clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care physicians (PCPs) referred 2,884 patients aged 18-75; 954 met eligibility criteria (including elevated mood and/or anxiety symptoms indicated as a score ≥ 10 on Patient Health Questionnaire or Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale); 704 were randomized in 3:3:1 ratio to receive either (1) the cCBT program (cCBT-only), (2) cCBT plus access to an Internet Support Group (cCBT+ISG), or (3) their PCP's usual care (UC). After exclusions, this study analyzed 689 patients: 590 receiving cCBT, in the combined cCBT-only and cCBT+ISG groups (91 African American, 499 White), and 99 receiving UC (22 African American, 77 White). INTERVENTION(S): We used the Beating the Blues cCBT program that consisted of eight 50-min Internet-delivered interactive sessions and "homework" assignments to complete between weekly sessions. College graduate-level care coaches provided six months of remote support. MAIN MEASURE(S): After prior analyses demonstrated no effect of the ISG program, we combined the cCBT-only and cCBT+ISG groups (cCBT) to compare to UC at 6-month follow-up. Controlling for sociodemographic factors, baseline symptoms, and treatment arm, we examined race differences for impact of cCBT versus UC on the mental health-related quality-of-life (Short-form 12 Health Survey), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) anxiety, and depression. RESULTS: Compared to UC, cCBT had no effect on quality of life (d = 0.10; p = 0.40), depression (d = - 0.19; p = 0.10), or anxiety (d = - 0.16; p = 0.18) for Whites. However, for African American patients, cCBT was associated with significant 6-month decrease in depression (d = - 0.47, p < 0.01) and anxiety scores (d = - 0.54, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: cCBT may be an efficient and scalable first step to eliminating disparities in mental health care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01482806. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01482806?term=rollman&rank=4.
BACKGROUND: Computerized cognitive behavioral therapy (cCBT) can improve mental health outcomes in White populations; however, it is unknown whether racial and ethnic minority populations receive clinical benefits from cCBT. OBJECTIVE: To study race differences in the impact of cCBT use on mental health outcomes among White and African American primary care patients. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a three-arm randomized controlled clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care physicians (PCPs) referred 2,884 patients aged 18-75; 954 met eligibility criteria (including elevated mood and/or anxiety symptoms indicated as a score ≥ 10 on Patient Health Questionnaire or Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale); 704 were randomized in 3:3:1 ratio to receive either (1) the cCBT program (cCBT-only), (2) cCBT plus access to an Internet Support Group (cCBT+ISG), or (3) their PCP's usual care (UC). After exclusions, this study analyzed 689 patients: 590 receiving cCBT, in the combined cCBT-only and cCBT+ISG groups (91 African American, 499 White), and 99 receiving UC (22 African American, 77 White). INTERVENTION(S): We used the Beating the Blues cCBT program that consisted of eight 50-min Internet-delivered interactive sessions and "homework" assignments to complete between weekly sessions. College graduate-level care coaches provided six months of remote support. MAIN MEASURE(S): After prior analyses demonstrated no effect of the ISG program, we combined the cCBT-only and cCBT+ISG groups (cCBT) to compare to UC at 6-month follow-up. Controlling for sociodemographic factors, baseline symptoms, and treatment arm, we examined race differences for impact of cCBT versus UC on the mental health-related quality-of-life (Short-form 12 Health Survey), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) anxiety, and depression. RESULTS: Compared to UC, cCBT had no effect on quality of life (d = 0.10; p = 0.40), depression (d = - 0.19; p = 0.10), or anxiety (d = - 0.16; p = 0.18) for Whites. However, for African American patients, cCBT was associated with significant 6-month decrease in depression (d = - 0.47, p < 0.01) and anxiety scores (d = - 0.54, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: cCBT may be an efficient and scalable first step to eliminating disparities in mental health care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01482806. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01482806?term=rollman&rank=4.
Authors: Melissa Flores; John M Ruiz; Christian Goans; Emily A Butler; Bert N Uchino; Michiyo Hirai; Ruben Tinajero; Timothy W Smith Journal: Cultur Divers Ethnic Minor Psychol Date: 2019-04-25
Authors: Harold W Neighbors; Cleopatra Caldwell; David R Williams; Randolph Nesse; Robert Joseph Taylor; Kai McKeever Bullard; Myriam Torres; James S Jackson Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2007-04
Authors: E Kaltenthaler; J Brazier; E De Nigris; I Tumur; M Ferriter; C Beverley; G Parry; G Rooney; P Sutcliffe Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: David R Williams; Hector M González; Harold Neighbors; Randolph Nesse; Jamie M Abelson; Julie Sweetman; James S Jackson Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2007-03
Authors: R L Spitzer; J B Williams; K Kroenke; M Linzer; F V deGruy; S R Hahn; D Brody; J G Johnson Journal: JAMA Date: 1994-12-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Judith Proudfoot; Clash Ryden; Brian Everitt; David A Shapiro; David Goldberg; Anthony Mann; Andre Tylee; Isaac Marks; Jeffrey A Gray Journal: Br J Psychiatry Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 9.319
Authors: Charles R Jonassaint; Patrice Gibbs; Bea Herbeck Belnap; Jordan F Karp; Kaleab K Abebe; Bruce L Rollman Journal: BJPsych Open Date: 2017-01-02