scholarly journals Comorbid Chronic Illness and the Diagnosis and Treatment of Depression in Safety Net Primary Care Settings

2009 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 123-135 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Ani ◽  
M. Bazargan ◽  
D. Hindman ◽  
D. Bell ◽  
M. Rodriguez ◽  
...  
JAMA ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 312 (5) ◽  
pp. 492 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Roy-Byrne ◽  
Kristin Bumgardner ◽  
Antoinette Krupski ◽  
Chris Dunn ◽  
Richard Ries ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 119 (1) ◽  
pp. 55
Author(s):  
G. P. Kostyuk ◽  
A. V. Masyakin ◽  
L. A. Burygina ◽  
I. V. Reverchuk

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah E. Valentine ◽  
Cara Fuchs ◽  
Natalya Sarkisova ◽  
Elyse A. Olesinski ◽  
A. Rani Elwy

Abstract Background Successful implementation of evidence-based treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in primary care may address treatment access and quality gaps by providing care in novel and less stigmatized settings. Yet, PTSD treatments are largely unavailable safety net primary care settings. We aimed to collect data on four potential influences on implementation, including the degree of less-than-best practices, determinants of the current practice, potential barriers and facilitators of implementation, and the feasibility of a proposed strategy for implementing a brief treatment for PTSD. Methods Our mixed-methods developmental formative evaluation (Stetler et al., 2006) was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), including a) surveys assessing implementation climate and attitudes towards evidence-based treatments and behavioral health integration and b) semi-structured interviews to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation and need for intervention and system augmentation. Participants were hospital employee stakeholders (N = 22), including primary care physicians, integrated behavioral health clinicians, community wellness advocates, and clinic leadership. We examined frequency and descriptive data from surveys and conducted directed content analysis of interviews. We used a concurrent mixed-methods approach, integrating survey and interview data collected simultaneously using a joint display approach to inform implementation efforts. We utilized a primary care community advisory board (CAB) comprised of employee stakeholders to refine interview guides, and apply findings to the specification of a revised implementation plan. Results Stakeholders described strong attitudinal support, yet therapist time and capacity restraints are major PTSD treatment implementation barriers. Patient engagement barriers such as stigma, mistrust, and care preferences were also noted. Recommendations based on findings included tailoring the intervention to meet existing workflows, system alignment efforts focused on improving detection, referral, and care coordination processes, protecting clinician time for training and consultation, and embedding a researcher in the practice. Conclusions Our evaluation identified key factors to be considered when preparing for implementation of PTSD treatments in safety net integrated primary care settings. Our project also demonstrated that successful implementation of EBTs for PTSD in safety net hospitals necessitates strong stakeholder engagement to identify and mitigate barriers to implementation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Y. Lee ◽  
M. G. Harris ◽  
H. A. Whiteford ◽  
S. K. Davidson ◽  
M. L. Chatterton ◽  
...  

Abstract Aims Depression and anxiety are among the most common mental health conditions treated in primary care. They frequently co-occur and involve recommended treatments that overlap. Evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) shows specific stepped care interventions to be cost-effective in improving symptom remission. However, most RCTs have focused on either depression or anxiety, which limits their generalisability to routine primary care settings. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a collaborative stepped care (CSC) intervention to treat depression and/or anxiety among adults in Australian primary care settings. Method A quasi-decision tree model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a CSC intervention relative to care-as-usual (CAU). The model adapted a CSC intervention described in a previous Dutch RCT to the Australian context. This 8-month, cluster RCT recruited patients with depression and/or anxiety (n = 158) from 30 primary care clinics in the Netherlands. The CSC intervention involved two steps: (1) guided self-help with a nurse at a primary care clinic; and (2) referral to specialised mental healthcare. The cost-effectiveness model adopted a health sector perspective and synthesised data from two main sources: RCT data on intervention pathways, remission probabilities and healthcare service utilisation; and Australia-specific data on demography, epidemiology and unit costs from external sources. Incremental costs and incremental health outcomes were estimated across a 1-year time horizon. Health outcomes were measured as disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) due to remitted cases of depression and/or anxiety. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured in 2019 Australian dollars (A$) per DALY averted. Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of cost-effectiveness findings. Result The CSC intervention had a high probability (99.6%) of being cost-effective relative to CAU. The resulting ICER (A$5207/DALY; 95% uncertainty interval: dominant to 25 345) fell below the willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50 000/DALY. ICERs were robust to changes in model parameters and assumptions. Conclusions This study found that a Dutch CSC intervention, with nurse-delivered guided self-help treatment as a first step, could potentially be cost-effective in treating depression and/or anxiety if transferred to the Australian primary care context. However, adaptations may be required to ensure feasibility and acceptability in the Australian healthcare context. In addition, further evidence is needed to verify the real-world cost-effectiveness of the CSC intervention when implemented in routine practice and to evaluate its effectiveness/cost-effectiveness when compared to other viable stepped care interventions for the treatment of depression and/or anxiety.


2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. P. Kostyuk ◽  
A. V. Masyakin ◽  
L. A. Burygina ◽  
I. V. Reverchuk

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann Marie Kriebel-Gasparro

Objective: The goal of this mixed methods descriptive study was to explore Advanced Practice Registered Nurses’ (APRNs’) knowledge of bipolar disorder (BPD) and their perceptions of facilitators and barriers to screening patients with known depression for BPD. Methods: A mixed method study design using surveys on BPD knowledge and screening practices as well as focus group data collection method for facilitators and barriers to screening. Results: 89 APRNs completed the survey and 12 APRNs participated in the focus groups. APRNs in any practice setting had low knowledge scores of BPD. No significant differences in screening for BPD for primary and non primary care APRNs. Qualitative findings revealed screening relates to tool availability; time, unsure of when to screen, fear of sigma, symptoms knowledge of BPD, accessible referral system, personal experiences with BPD, and therapeutic relationships with patients. Conclusion: Misdiagnosis of BPD as unipolar depression is common in primary care settings, leading to a long lag time to optimal diagnosis and treatment. The wait time to diagnosis and treatment could be reduced if APRNs in primary care settings screen patients with a diagnosis of depression by using validated screening tools. These results can inform APRN practice and further research on the effectiveness of screening for reducing the morbidity and mortality of BPDs in primary care settings; underscores the need for integration of mental health care into primary care as well as the need for more APRN education on the diagnosis and management of bipolar disorders.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document