The American journal of psychiatry · 2014
A randomized trial of collaborative depression care in obstetrics and gynecology clinics: socioeconomic disadvantage and treatment response.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Katon Wayne, Russo Joan, Reed Susan D, Croicu Carmen A, Ludman Evette, LaRocco Anna, Melville Jennifer L
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The authors evaluated whether an obstetrics-gynecology clinic-based collaborative depression care intervention is differentially effective compared with usual care for socially disadvantaged women with either no health insurance or with public coverage compared with those with commercial insurance.
METHOD: The study was a two-site randomized controlled trial with an 18-month follow-up. Women were recruited who screened positive (a score of at least 10 on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9) and met criteria for major depression or dysthymia. The authors tested whether insurance status had a differential effect on continuous depression outcomes between the intervention and usual care over 18 months. They also assessed differences between the intervention and usual care in quality of depression care and dichotomous clinical outcomes (a decrease of at least 50% in depressive symptom severity and patient-rated improvement on the Patient Global Improvement Scale).
RESULTS: The treatment effect was significantly associated with insurance status. Compared with patients with commercial insurance, those with no insurance or with public coverage had greater recovery from depression symptoms with collaborative care than with usual care over the 18-month follow-up period. At the 12-month follow-up, the effect size for depression improvement compared with usual care among women with no insurance or with public coverage was 0.81 (95% CI=0.41, 0.95), whereas it was 0.39 (95% CI=-0.08, 0.84) for women with commercial insurance.
CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative depression care adapted to obstetrics-gynecology settings had a greater impact on depression outcomes for socially disadvantaged women with no insurance or with public coverage compared with women with commercial insurance.
METHOD: The study was a two-site randomized controlled trial with an 18-month follow-up. Women were recruited who screened positive (a score of at least 10 on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9) and met criteria for major depression or dysthymia. The authors tested whether insurance status had a differential effect on continuous depression outcomes between the intervention and usual care over 18 months. They also assessed differences between the intervention and usual care in quality of depression care and dichotomous clinical outcomes (a decrease of at least 50% in depressive symptom severity and patient-rated improvement on the Patient Global Improvement Scale).
RESULTS: The treatment effect was significantly associated with insurance status. Compared with patients with commercial insurance, those with no insurance or with public coverage had greater recovery from depression symptoms with collaborative care than with usual care over the 18-month follow-up period. At the 12-month follow-up, the effect size for depression improvement compared with usual care among women with no insurance or with public coverage was 0.81 (95% CI=0.41, 0.95), whereas it was 0.39 (95% CI=-0.08, 0.84) for women with commercial insurance.
CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative depression care adapted to obstetrics-gynecology settings had a greater impact on depression outcomes for socially disadvantaged women with no insurance or with public coverage compared with women with commercial insurance.