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.

Quality improvement (QI) for depression in primary care can reduce disparities in outcomes. We describe how community-partnered participatory research was used to design Community Partners in Care, a randomized trial of community engagement to activate a multiple-agency network versus support for individual agencies to implement depression QI in underserved communities.

CONTEXT: Depression is a common condition associated with significant morbidity in adolescents. Few depressed adolescents receive effective treatment for depression in primary care settings. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a quality improvement intervention aimed at increasing access to evidence-based treatments for depression (particularly cognitive-behavior therapy and antidepressant medication), relative to usual care, among adolescents in primary care practices. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized controlled trial conducted between 1999 and 2003 enrolling 418 primary care patients with current depressive symptoms, aged 13 through 21 years, from 5 health care organizations purposively selected to include managed care, public sector, and academic medical center clinics in the United States. INTERVENTION: Usual care (n = 207) or 6-month quality improvement intervention (n = 211) including expert leader teams at each site, care managers who supported primary care clinicians in evaluating and managing patients' depression, training for care managers in manualized cognitive-behavior therapy for depression, and patient and clinician choice regarding treatment modality. Participating clinicians also received education regarding depression evaluation, management, and pharmacological and psychosocial treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Depressive symptoms assessed by Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D) score. Secondary outcomes were mental health-related quality of life assessed by Mental Health Summary Score (MCS-12) and satisfaction with mental health care assessed using a 5-point scale. RESULTS: Six months after baseline assessments, intervention patients, compared with usual care patients, reported significantly fewer depressive symptoms (mean [SD] CES-D scores, 19.0 [11.9] vs 21.4 [13.1]; P = .02), higher mental health-related quality of life (mean [SD] MCS-12 scores, 44.6 [11.3] vs 42.8 [12.9]; P = .03), and greater satisfaction with mental health care (mean [SD] scores, 3.8 [0.9] vs 3.5 [1.0]; P = .004). Intervention patients also reported significantly higher rates of mental health care (32.1% vs 17.2%, P<.001) and psychotherapy or counseling (32.0% vs 21.2%, P = .007). CONCLUSIONS: A 6-month quality improvement intervention aimed at improving access to evidence-based depression treatments through primary care was significantly more effective than usual care for depressed adolescents from diverse primary care practices. The greater uptake of counseling vs medication under the intervention reinforces the importance of practice interventions that include resources to enable evidence-based psychotherapy for depressed adolescents.

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.

This paper evaluated whether externally designed, evidence-based interventions for improving care for depression can be locally implemented in managed care organizations. The interventions were carried out as part of a randomized trial involving 46 practices within six diverse non-academic managed care organizations. Based on evaluation of adherence to the intervention protocol, the authors determined that local practice leaders are able to implement pre-designed interventions for improving depression care. Adherence rates for most key intervention activities were above 70%, and many were near 100%. Three intervention activities fell short of the goal of 70% implementation and should be targets for future improvement in clinical practice for depression.