| Literature DB >> 33963873 |
Tanya M Spruill1, Daniel Friedman2, Laura Diaz1, Mark J Butler1,3, Keith S Goldfeld1, Susanna O'Kula2, Jacqueline Montesdeoca1, Leydi Payano1, Amanda J Shallcross1, Kiranjot Kaur1, Michael Tau2, Blanca Vazquez2, Amy Jongeling2, Gbenga Ogedegbe1,4, Orrin Devinsky2.
Abstract
Depression is associated with adverse outcomes in epilepsy but is undertreated in this population. Project UPLIFT, a telephone-based depression self-management program, was developed for adults with epilepsy and has been shown to reduce depressive symptoms in English-speaking patients. There remains an unmet need for accessible mental health programs for Hispanic adults with epilepsy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and effects on depressive symptoms of a culturally adapted version of UPLIFT for the Hispanic community. Hispanic patients with elevated depressive symptoms (n = 72) were enrolled from epilepsy clinics in New York City and randomized to UPLIFT or usual care. UPLIFT was delivered in English or Spanish to small groups in eight weekly telephone sessions. Feasibility was assessed by recruitment, retention, and adherence rates and acceptability was assessed by self-reported satisfaction with the intervention. Depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 scores) were compared between study arms over 12 months. The mean age was 43.3±11.3, 71% of participants were female and 67% were primary Spanish speakers. Recruitment (76% consent rate) and retention rates (86-93%) were high. UPLIFT participants completed a median of six out of eight sessions and satisfaction ratings were high, but rates of long-term practice were low. Rates of clinically significant depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 ≥5) were lower in UPLIFT versus usual care throughout follow-up (63% vs. 72%, 8 weeks; 40% vs. 70%, 6 months; 47% vs. 70%, 12 months). Multivariable-adjusted regressions demonstrated statistically significant differences at 6 months (OR = 0.24, 95% CI, 0.06-0.93), which were slightly reduced at 12 months (OR = 0.30, 95% CI, 0.08-1.16). Results suggest that UPLIFT is feasible and acceptable among Hispanic adults with epilepsy and demonstrate promising effects on depressive symptoms. Larger trials in geographically diverse samples are warranted.Entities:
Keywords: Depression; Disparities; Epilepsy; Hispanic/Latinx; Mindfulness; Telehealth
Year: 2021 PMID: 33963873 PMCID: PMC8320882 DOI: 10.1093/tbm/ibab045
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Behav Med ISSN: 1613-9860 Impact factor: 3.046
Demographic and baseline characteristics
| Total ( | UPLIFT ( | Usual care ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 43.3 (11.3) | 47.0 (11.4) | 39.6 (10.0) | .005 |
| Male | 21 (29.2%) | 10 (27.8%) | 11 (30.6%) | .795 |
| Education | .100 | |||
| Less than high school | 33 (45.8%) | 13 (36.1%) | 20 (55.6%) | |
| High school graduate | 33 (45.8%) | 21 (58.3%) | 12 (33.3%) | |
| College graduate | 6 (8.3%) | 2 (5.6%) | 4 (11.1%) | |
| Not working for pay | 50 (69.4%) | 28 (77.8%) | 22 (61.1%) | .125 |
| Household income* | .865 | |||
| <$25,000 | 53 (82.8%) | 27 (81.8%) | 26 (83.9%) | |
| $25,000-$49,999 | 8 (12.5%) | 4 (12.1%) | 4 (12.9%) | |
| ≥$50,000 | 3 (4.7%) | 2 (6.1%) | 1 (3.2%) | |
| Married/coupled | 23 (31.9%) | 7 (19.4%) | 16 (44.4%) | .023 |
| Primary language Spanish | 48 (66.7%) | 24 (66.7%) | 24 (66.7%) | 1.00 |
| Antidepressant medication use | 23 (31.9%) | 14 (38.9%) | 9 (25.0%) | .206 |
| Baseline PHQ-9 score | 8.4 (4.7) | 8.1 (4.7) | 8.7 (4.7) | .618 |
| Baseline PHQ-9 ≥5 | 58 (80.6%) | 29 (80.6%) | 29 (80.6%) | 1.00 |
| ≥1 seizure in past 12 months | 53 (73.6%) | 26 (72.2%) | 27 (75.0%) | .789 |
Continuous data represented as mean (SD) and categorical data presented as n (%).
*Excludes 8 participants who declined to report income.
Fig 1Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) diagram.
Feedback from UPLIFT participants
| Positive experiences | “What I liked the most was to know that I am not the only one going through this problem, to know that there are other people that have depression, and to listen to others’ stories.” |
|---|---|
| “I enjoyed the program because even though we were not able to see each other we were able to talk to one another about different topics, about different aspects of epilepsy.” | |
| “I felt that by participating I could get help to control my mood and my thoughts about myself. I have learned to value myself better.” | |
| “With the program it helped me to open up, and speak freely with my problem. It has made me a different person.” | |
| “I enjoyed the program because it helped me to remember the negative events in my life and provided me a way to manage my negative thoughts.” | |
| Challenges | “The way [facilitator] communicates makes me feel like I can talk. She inspires trust and made me feel safe. … On the other hand, it is difficult to speak personal matters on the phone. I feel better when I am in groups in person.” |
| “Some things were a little difficult to understand. My mother had to help me with some words from the book.” | |
| “I think some people were very depressive. It was very strong, that was one of the reasons why I stopped calling.” | |
| Suggestions for improvement | “I think it was well structured but I would prefer to have an in-person session, at least once.” |
| “Try to find a way for participants to do their homework easier. … Maybe sending a reminder will help. Maybe using an app.” | |
| “Something that will be helpful is to add more time to sessions since one hour is not enough. Also, I think it will be helpful if you guys add more sessions into the program.” |
Mean (SD) PHQ-9 scores over time by study arm
| Time point | Total | UPLIFT | Usual care | SMD |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline ( | 8.4 (4.7) | 8.1 (4.8) | 8.7 (4.7) | .123 | .607 |
| 8 weeks ( | 7.9 (5.0) | 7.6 (4.8) | 8.2 (5.1) | .112 | .648 |
| 6 months ( | 6.4 (4.7) | 5.8 (4.6) | 7.1 (4.7) | .266 | .288 |
| 12 months ( | 7.1 (5.5) | 6.9 (6.3) | 7.2 (4.5) | .054 | .833 |
SMD standardized mean difference.
Fig 2Proportion of participants with mild or greater depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 ≥5) over 12 months by study arm.
Intervention effects (UPLIFT vs. Usual care) on the rate of mild depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 ≥5) over time
| Model 1* | Model 2** | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predictor | OR (95% CI) |
|
|
|
| Intervention | 0.89 (0.27–2.89) | .840 | 0.80 (0.24–2.70) | .720 |
| 8 weeks | 0.59 (0.21–1.69) | .327 | 0.58 (0.19–1.71) | .320 |
| 6 months | 0.52 (0.23–1.18) | .119 | 0.51 (0.22–1.18) | .115 |
| 12 months | 0.53 (0.24–1.19) | .126 | 0.52 (0.22–1.20) | .123 |
| Intervention * 8 weeks | 0.64 (0.14–2.85) | .557 | 0.64 (0.13–3.08) | .579 |
| Intervention * 6 months | 0.26 (0.07–0.95) | .042 | 0.24 (0.06–0.93) | .038 |
| Intervention * 12 months | 0.32 (0.09–1.16) | .083 | 0.30 (0.08–1.16) | .080 |
*Model 1 – Adjusted for recruitment cohort and antidepressant medication use.
**Model 2 – Adjusted for covariates in model 1 plus age and education status.