OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of a (CEP) versus a technical assistance approach (Resources for Services, or RS) to disseminate depression care for low-income ethnic minority women. METHODS: We conducted secondary analyses of intervention effects for largely low-income, minority women subsample (n = 595; 45.1% Latino and 45.4% African American) in a matched, clustered, randomized control trial conducted in 2 low-resource communities in Los Angeles, California, between 2010 and 2012. Outcomes assessed included mental health, socioeconomic factors, and service use at 6- and 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: Although we found no intervention difference for depressive symptoms, there were statistically significant effects for mental health quality of life, resiliency, homelessness risk, and financial difficulties at 6 months, as well as missed work days, self-efficacy, and care barriers at 12 months favoring CEP relative to RS. CEP increased use of outpatient substance abuse services and faith-based depression visits at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Engaging health care and social community programs may offer modest improvements on key functional and socioeconomic outcomes, reduce care barriers, and increase engagement in alternative depression services for low-income, predominantly ethnic minority women.

BACKGROUND: Coordinated Anxiety Learning and Management (CALM) is a model for delivering evidence-based treatment for anxiety disorders in primary care. Compared to usual care, CALM produced greater improvement in anxiety symptoms. However, mean estimates can obscure heterogeneity in treatment response. This study aimed to identify (1) clusters of participants with similar patterns of change in anxiety severity and impairment (trajectory groups); and (2) characteristics that predict trajectory group membership. METHODS: The CALM randomized controlled effectiveness trial was conducted in 17 primary care clinics in four US cities in 2006–2009. 1,004 English- or Spanish-speaking patients age 18–75 with panic, generalized anxiety, social anxiety, and/or posttraumatic stress disorder participated. The Overall Anxiety Severity and Impairment Scale was administered repeatedly to 482 participants randomized to CALM treatment. Group-based trajectory modeling was applied to identify trajectory groups and multinomial logit to predict trajectory group membership. RESULTS: Two predicted trajectories, representing about two-thirds of participants, were below the cut-off for clinically significant anxiety a couple of months after treatment initiation. The predicted trajectory for the majority of remaining participants was below the cut-off by 9 months. A small group of participants did not show consistent improvement. Being sicker at baseline, not working, and reporting less social support were associated with less favorable trajectories. CONCLUSIONS: There is heterogeneity in patient response to anxiety treatment. Adverse circumstances appear to hamper treatment response. To what extent anxiety symptoms improve insufficiently because adverse patient circumstances contribute to suboptimal treatment delivery, suboptimal treatment adherence, or suboptimal treatment response requires further investigation.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement (QI) programs for depressed primary care patients can improve health outcomes for 6 to 28 months; effects for longer than 28 months are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess how QI for depression affects health outcomes, quality of care, and health outcome disparities at 57-month follow-up. DESIGN: A group-level randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Forty-six primary care practices in 6 managed care organizations. PATIENTS: Of 1356 primary care patients who screened positive for depression and enrolled in the trial, 991 (73%, including 451 Latinos and African Americans) completed 57-month telephone follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: Clinics were randomly assigned to usual care or to 1 of 2 QI programs supporting QI teams, provider training, nurse assessment, and patient education, plus resources to support medication management (QI-meds) or psychotherapy (QI-therapy) for 6 to 12 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Probable depressive disorder in the previous 6 months, mental health-related quality of life in the previous 30 days, primary care or mental health specialty visits, counseling or antidepressant medications in the previous 6 months, and unmet need, defined as depressed but not receiving appropriate care. RESULTS: Combined QI-meds and QI-therapy, relative to usual care, reduced the percentage of participants with probable disorder at 5 years by 6.6 percentage points (P = .04). QI-therapy improved health outcomes and reduced unmet need for appropriate care among Latinos and African Americans combined but provided few long-term benefits among whites, reducing outcome disparities related to usual care (P = .04 for QI-ethnicity interaction for probable depressive disorder). CONCLUSIONS: Programs for QI for depressed primary care patients implemented by managed care practices can improve health outcomes 5 years after implementation and reduce health outcome disparities by markedly improving health outcomes and unmet need for appropriate care among Latinos and African Americans relative to whites; thus, equity was improved in the long run.

CONTEXT: Depression is a leading cause of disability worldwide, but treatment rates in primary care are low. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective of 2 quality improvement (QI) interventions to improve treatment of depression in primary care and their effects on patient employment. DESIGN: Group-level randomized controlled trial conducted June 1996 to July 1999. SETTING: Forty-six primary care clinics in 6 community-based managed care organizations. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred eighty-one primary care clinicians and 1356 patients with positive screening results for current depression. INTERVENTIONS: Matched practices were randomly assigned to provide usual care (n = 443 patients) or to 1 of 2 QI interventions offering training to practice leaders and nurses, enhanced educational and assessment resources, and either nurses for medication follow-up (QI-meds; n = 424 patients) or trained local psychotherapists (QI-therapy; n = 489). Practices could flexibly implement the interventions, which did not assign type of treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total health care costs, costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), days with depression burden, and employment over 24 months, compared between usual care and the 2 interventions. RESULTS: Relative to usual care, average health care costs increased $419 (11%) in QI-meds (P = .35) and $485 (13%) in QI-therapy (P = .28); estimated costs per QALY gained were between $15 331 and $36 467 for QI-meds and $9478 and $21 478 for QI-therapy; and patients had 25 (P = .19) and 47 (P = .01) fewer days with depression burden and were employed 17.9 (P = .07) and 20.9 (P = .03) more days during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Societal cost-effectiveness of practice-initiated QI efforts for depression is comparable with that of accepted medical interventions. The intervention effects on employment may be of particular interest to employers and other stakeholders.