Ethnicity & disease · 2018
Comparative Effectiveness of Coalitions Versus Technical Assistance for Depression Quality Improvement in Persons with Multiple Chronic Conditions.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Springgate Benjamin, Tang Lingqi, Ong Michael, Aoki Wayne, Chung Bowen, Dixon Elizabeth, Johnson Megan Dwight, Jones Felica, Landry Craig, Lizaola Elizabeth, Mtume Norma, Ngo Victoria K, Pulido Esmeralda, Sherbourne Cathy, Wright Aziza Lucas, Whittington Yolanda, Williams Pluscedia, Zhang Lily, Miranda Jeanne, Belin Thomas, Gilmore James, Jones Loretta, Wells Kenneth B
Аннотация
SIGNIFICANCE: Prior research suggests that Community Engagement and Planning (CEP) for coalition support compared with Resources for Services (RS) for program technical assistance to implement depression quality improvement programs improves 6- and 12-month client mental-health related quality of life (MHRQL); however, effects for clients with multiple chronic medical conditions (MCC) are unknown.
OBJECTIVE: To explore effectiveness of CEP vs RS in MCC and non-MCC subgroups.
DESIGN: Secondary analyses of a cluster-randomized trial.
SETTING: 93 health care and community-based programs in two neighborhoods.
PARTICIPANTS: Of 4,440 clients screened, 1,322 depressed (Patient Health Questionnaire, PHQ8) provided contact information, 1,246 enrolled and 1,018 (548 with ≥3 MCC) completed baseline, 6- or 12-month surveys.
INTERVENTION: CEP or RS for implementing depression quality improvement programs.
OUTCOMES AND ANALYSES: Primary: depression (PHQ9 <10), poor MHRQL (Short Form Health Survey, SF-12<40); Secondary: mental wellness, good physical health, behavioral health hospitalization, chronic homelessness risk, work/workloss days, services use at 6 and 12 months. End-point regressions were used to estimate intervention effects on outcomes for subgroups with ≥3 MCC, non-MCC, and intervention-by-MCC interactions (exploratory).
RESULTS: Among MCC clients at 6 months, CEP vs RS lowered likelihoods of depression and poor MHRQL; increased likelihood of mental wellness; reduced work-loss days among employed and likelihoods of ≥4 behavioral-health hospitalization nights and chronic homelessness risk, while increasing faith-based and park community center depression services; and at 12 months, likelihood of good physical health and park community center depression services use (each P<.05). There were no significant interactions or primary outcome effects for non-MCC.
CONCLUSIONS: CEP was more effective than RS in improving 6-month primary outcomes among depressed MCC clients, without significant interactions.
OBJECTIVE: To explore effectiveness of CEP vs RS in MCC and non-MCC subgroups.
DESIGN: Secondary analyses of a cluster-randomized trial.
SETTING: 93 health care and community-based programs in two neighborhoods.
PARTICIPANTS: Of 4,440 clients screened, 1,322 depressed (Patient Health Questionnaire, PHQ8) provided contact information, 1,246 enrolled and 1,018 (548 with ≥3 MCC) completed baseline, 6- or 12-month surveys.
INTERVENTION: CEP or RS for implementing depression quality improvement programs.
OUTCOMES AND ANALYSES: Primary: depression (PHQ9 <10), poor MHRQL (Short Form Health Survey, SF-12<40); Secondary: mental wellness, good physical health, behavioral health hospitalization, chronic homelessness risk, work/workloss days, services use at 6 and 12 months. End-point regressions were used to estimate intervention effects on outcomes for subgroups with ≥3 MCC, non-MCC, and intervention-by-MCC interactions (exploratory).
RESULTS: Among MCC clients at 6 months, CEP vs RS lowered likelihoods of depression and poor MHRQL; increased likelihood of mental wellness; reduced work-loss days among employed and likelihoods of ≥4 behavioral-health hospitalization nights and chronic homelessness risk, while increasing faith-based and park community center depression services; and at 12 months, likelihood of good physical health and park community center depression services use (each P<.05). There were no significant interactions or primary outcome effects for non-MCC.
CONCLUSIONS: CEP was more effective than RS in improving 6-month primary outcomes among depressed MCC clients, without significant interactions.