OBJECTIVE: To compare primary care providers' depression-related knowledge, attitudes, and practices and to understand how these reports vary for providers in staff or group-model managed care organizations (MCOs) compared with network-model MCOs including independent practice associations and preferred provider organizations. DESIGN: Survey of primary care providers' depression-related practices in 1996. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We surveyed 410 providers, from 80 outpatient clinics, in 11 MCOs participating in four studies designed to improve the quality of depression care in primary care. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We measured knowledge based on depression guidelines, attitudes (beliefs about burden, skill, and barriers) related to depression, and reported behavior. Providers in both types of MCO are equally knowledgeable about treating depression (better knowledge of pharmacologic than psychotherapeutic treatments) and perceive equivalent skills in treating depression. However, compared with network-model providers, staff/group-model providers have stronger beliefs that treating depression is burdensome to their practice. While more staff/group-model providers reported time limitations as a barrier to optimal depression treatment, more network-model providers reported limited access to mental health specialty referral as a barrier. Accordingly, these staff/group-model providers are more likely to treat patients with major depression through referral (51% vs 38%) or to assess but not treat (17% vs 7%), and network-model providers are more likely to prescribe antidepressants (57% vs 6%) as first-line treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas the providers from staff/group-model MCOs had greater access to and relied more on referral, the providers from network-model organizations were more likely to treat depression themselves. Given varying attitudes and behaviors, improving primary care for the treatment of depression will require unique strategies beyond enhancing technical knowledge for the two types of MCOs.
OBJECTIVE: To compare primary care providers' depression-related knowledge, attitudes, and practices and to understand how these reports vary for providers in staff or group-model managed care organizations (MCOs) compared with network-model MCOs including independent practice associations and preferred provider organizations. DESIGN: Survey of primary care providers' depression-related practices in 1996. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We surveyed 410 providers, from 80 outpatient clinics, in 11 MCOs participating in four studies designed to improve the quality of depression care in primary care. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We measured knowledge based on depression guidelines, attitudes (beliefs about burden, skill, and barriers) related to depression, and reported behavior. Providers in both types of MCO are equally knowledgeable about treating depression (better knowledge of pharmacologic than psychotherapeutic treatments) and perceive equivalent skills in treating depression. However, compared with network-model providers, staff/group-model providers have stronger beliefs that treating depression is burdensome to their practice. While more staff/group-model providers reported time limitations as a barrier to optimal depression treatment, more network-model providers reported limited access to mental health specialty referral as a barrier. Accordingly, these staff/group-model providers are more likely to treat patients with major depression through referral (51% vs 38%) or to assess but not treat (17% vs 7%), and network-model providers are more likely to prescribe antidepressants (57% vs 6%) as first-line treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas the providers from staff/group-model MCOs had greater access to and relied more on referral, the providers from network-model organizations were more likely to treat depression themselves. Given varying attitudes and behaviors, improving primary care for the treatment of depression will require unique strategies beyond enhancing technical knowledge for the two types of MCOs.
Authors: Joseph J Gallo; Cynthia Zubritsky; James Maxwell; Michael Nazar; Hillary R Bogner; Louise M Quijano; Heidi J Syropoulos; Karen L Cheal; Hongtu Chen; Herman Sanchez; John Dodson; Sue E Levkoff Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2004 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Chizobam Ani; Mohsen Bazargan; David Hindman; Douglas Bell; Michael Rodriguez; Richard S Baker Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2009 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: L Miriam Dickinson; W Perry Dickinson; Kathryn Rost; Frank DeGruy; Caroline Emsermann; Desireé Froshaug; Paul A Nutting; Lisa Meredith Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-08-05 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Edward P Post; Amy M Kilbourne; Robert W Bremer; Francis X Solano; Harold Alan Pincus; Charles F Reynolds Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2009-12-31 Impact factor: 7.327