Dataset Information

The effects of collaborative care versus consultation liaison for anxiety disorders and depression in Denmark: two randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Collaborative care (CC) and consultation liaison (CL) are two conceptual models aiming to improve mental healthcare in primary care. The effects of these models have not been compared in a Danish setting.

Aims

To examine the effects of CC versus CL for persons with anxiety and depression in Danish general practices (trial registration: NCT03113175 and NCT03113201).

Method

Two randomised parallel superiority trials for anxiety disorders and depression were carried out in 2018-2019. In the CC-group, care managers collaborated with general practitioners (GPs) to provide evidence-based treatment according to structured treatment plans. They followed up and provided psychoeducation and/or cognitive-behavioural therapy. The GPs initiated pharmacological treatment if indicated, and a psychiatrist provided supervision. In the CL-group, the intervention consisted of the GP's usual treatment. However, the psychiatrist and care manager could be consulted. Primary outcomes were depression symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory-II, BDI-II) in the depression trial and anxiety symptoms (Beck Anxiety Inventory, BAI) in the anxiety trial at 6-month follow-up.

Results

In total, 302 participants with anxiety disorders and 389 participants with depression were included. A significant difference in BDI-II score was found in the depression trial, with larger symptom reductions in the CC-group (CC: 12.7, 95% CI 11.4-14.0; CL: 17.5, 95% CI 16.2-18.9; Cohen's d = -0.50, P ≤ 0.001). There was a significant difference in BAI in the anxiety trial (CC: 14.9, 95% CI 13.5-16.3; CL: 17.9, 95% CI 16.5-19.3; Cohen's d = -0.34, P ≤ 0.001), with larger symptom reductions in the CC-group.

Conclusions

Collaborative care was an effective model to improve outcomes for persons with depression and anxiety disorders.

SUBMITTER: Curth NK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10895499 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The effects of collaborative care versus consultation liaison for anxiety disorders and depression in Denmark: two randomised controlled trials.

Curth Nadja Kehler NK Hjorthøj Carsten C Brinck-Claussen Ursula U Jørgensen Kirstine Bro KB Rosendal Susanne S Bojesen Anders Bo AB Nordentoft Merete M Eplov Lene Falgaard LF

The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science 20230901 3

<h4>Background</h4>Collaborative care (CC) and consultation liaison (CL) are two conceptual models aiming to improve mental healthcare in primary care. The effects of these models have not been compared in a Danish setting.<h4>Aims</h4>To examine the effects of CC versus CL for persons with anxiety and depression in Danish general practices (trial registration: NCT03113175 and NCT03113201).<h4>Method</h4>Two randomised parallel superiority trials for anxiety disorders and depression were carried ...[more]

PMID: 37395101

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Models of collaborative care and consultation liaison propose organizational changes to improve the quality of care for people with common mental disorders, such as anxiety and depression. Some literature suggests only short-term positive effects of consultation liaison on patient-related outcomes, whereas collaborative care demonstrates both short-term and long-term positive effects. To our knowledge, only one randomized trial has compared the effects of these models. Collaborative care was superior to consultation liaison in reducing symptoms of depression for up to 3 months, but the authors found no difference at 9-months' follow-up. The Collabri Flex Trial for Depression and the Collabri Flex Trial for Anxiety aim to compare the effects of collaborative care with those of a form of consultation liaison that contains potential contaminating elements from collaborative care. The trials build on knowledge from the previous cluster-randomized Collabri trials. METHODS:Two randomized, investigator-initiated, parallel-group, superiority trials have been established: one investigating the effects of collaborative care vs consultation liaison for depression and one investigating the effects of collaborative care vs consultation liaison for generalized anxiety, panic disorder and social anxiety disorder at 6-months' follow-up. Participants are recruited from general practices in the Capital Region of Denmark: 240 in the depression trial and 284 in the anxiety trial. The primary outcome is self-reported depression symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II)) in the depression trial and self-reported anxiety symptoms (Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI)) in the anxiety trial. In both trials, the self-reported secondary outcomes are general psychological problems and symptoms (Symptom Checklist 90-Revised), functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) and general well-being (World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index). In the depression trial, BAI is an additional secondary outcome, and BDI-II is an additional secondary outcome in the anxiety trial. Explorative outcomes will also be collected. DISCUSSION:The results will supplement those of the cluster-randomized Collabri trials and provide pivotal information about the effects of collaborative care in Denmark. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03113175 and NCT03113201 . Registered on 13 April 2017.

Project description:BackgroundMeta-analyses suggest that collaborative care (CC) improves symptoms of depression and anxiety. In CC, a care manager collaborates with a general practitioner (GP) to provide evidence-based care. Most CC research is from the US, focusing on depression. As research results may not transfer to other settings, we developed and tested a Danish CC-model (the Collabri-model) for depression, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and social anxiety disorder in general practice.MethodsFour cluster-randomized superiority trials evaluated the effects of CC. The overall aim was to explore if CC significantly improved depression and anxiety symptoms compared to treatment-as-usual at 6-months' follow-up. The Collabri-model was founded on a multi-professional collaboration between a team of mental-health specialists (psychiatrists and care managers) and GPs. In collaboration with GPs, care managers provided treatment according to a structured plan, including regular reassessments and follow-up. Treatment modalities (cognitive behavioral therapy, psychoeducation, and medication) were offered based on stepped care algorithms. Face-to-face meetings between GPs and care managers took place regularly, and a psychiatrist provided supervision. The control group received treatment-as-usual. Primary outcomes were symptoms of depression (BDI-II) and anxiety (BAI) at 6-months' follow-up. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated based on 6-months' follow-up.ResultsDespite various attempts to improve inclusion rates, the necessary number of participants was not recruited. Seven hundred thirty-one participants were included: 325 in the depression trial and 406 in the anxiety trials. The Collabri-model was implemented, demonstrating good fidelity to core model elements. In favor of CC, we found a statistically significant difference between depression scores at 6-months' follow-up in the depression trial. The difference was not significant at 15-months' follow-up. The anxiety trials were pooled for data analysis due to inadequate sample sizes. At 6- and 15-months' follow-up, there was a difference in anxiety symptoms favoring CC. These differences were not statistically significant. The ICER was 58,280 Euro per QALY.ConclusionsAt 6 months, a significant difference between groups was found in the depression trial, but not in the pooled anxiety trial. However, these results should be cautiously interpreted as there is a risk of selection bias and lacking statistical power.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02678624 and NCT02678845 . Retrospectively registered on 7 February 2016.

Project description:BackgroundDepression and anxiety disorders are highly comorbid conditions and a worldwide disease burden; however, large-scale studies delineating their association are scarce. In this retrospective study, we aimed to assess the effect of severe anxiety disorders on the risk and course of depression.MethodsWe did a population-based cohort study with prospectively gathered data in Denmark using data from three Danish population registers: The Danish Civil Registration System, the Danish Psychiatric Central Register, and the Danish National Hospital Registry. We selected the cohort from people born in Denmark between Jan 1, 1955, and Dec 31, 2002, who we followed up from Jan 1, 1994, to Dec 31, 2012. The cohort was restricted to individuals with known parents. First, we investigated the effect of specific anxiety diagnoses on risk of single depressive episodes and recurrent depressive disorder. Second, we investigated the effect of comorbid anxiety on risk of readmission for depression, adjusting for sex, age, calendar year, parental age, place at residence at time of birth, and the interaction of age with sex.FindingsWe included 3,380,059 individuals in our study cohort. The adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) for single depressive episodes was 3·0 (95% CI 2·8-3·1, p<0·0001) and for recurrent depressive disorder was 5·0 (4·8-5·2) in patients with severe anxiety disorders compared with the general population. Compared with control individuals, the offspring of parents with anxiety disorders were more likely to be diagnosed with single depressive episodes (1·9, 1·8-2·0) or recurrent depressive disorder (2·1, 1·9-2·2). Comorbid anxiety increased the readmission rates in both patients with single depressive episodes and patients with recurrent depressive disorder.InterpretationSevere anxiety constitutes a significant risk factor for depression. Focusing on specific anxiety disorders might help to identify individuals at risk of depression, thereby providing new insights for prevention and treatment.FundingThe Lundbeck Foundation Initiative for Integrative Psychiatric Research (iPSYCH).

Project description:BackgroundCollaborative care is an evidence-based approach to improving outcomes for common mental disorders in primary care. Efforts are underway to broadly implement the collaborative care model, yet the extent to which this model promotes person-centered mental health care has been little studied. The aim of this study was to describe practices related to two patient and family engagement strategies-personalized care planning and shared decision making-within collaborative care programs for depression and anxiety disorders in primary care.MethodsWe conducted an update of a 2012 Cochrane review, which involved searches in Cochrane CCDAN and CINAHL databases, complemented by additional database, trial registry, and cluster searches. We included programs evaluated in a clinical trials targeting adults or youth diagnosed with depressive or anxiety disorders, as well as sibling reports related to these trials. Pairs of reviewers working independently selected the studies and data extraction for engagement strategies was guided by a codebook. We used narrative synthesis to report on findings.ResultsIn total, 150 collaborative care programs were analyzed. The synthesis showed that personalized care planning or shared decision making were practiced in fewer than half of programs. Practices related to personalized care planning, and to a lesser extent shared decision making, involved multiple members of the collaborative care team, with care managers playing a pivotal role in supporting patient and family engagement. Opportunities for quality improvement were identified, including fostering greater patient involvement in collaborative goal setting and integrating training and decision aids to promote shared decision making.ConclusionThis review suggests that personalized care planning and shared decision making could be more fully integrated within collaborative care programs for depression and anxiety disorders. Their absence in some programs is a missed opportunity to spread person-centered mental health practices in primary care.

Project description:BackgroundConsultation-liaison psychiatry (CLP)-professional psychiatric care provided to coordinate with surgical or medical treatment of inpatients with psychiatric disorders-was included in universal health coverage in Japan in 2012. Despite evidence of benefits of CLP, basic data and geographic distribution information regarding CLP at the national level remain unclear. This study aimed to 1) identify the geographic disparity of CLP in Japan and 2) investigate the association between number of consultations per CLP patient and region.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed anonymized data retrieved from the Japanese administrative inpatient database regarding inpatients who were provided CLP between April 2012 and March 2017. Demographic characteristics were summarized and geographic disparity by prefecture was visualized for fiscal years 2012 and 2016; we also summarized the data according to region. Multivariate linear regression analysis was used to investigate association between the number of consultations per CLP patient and region after adjusting for covariates.ResultsData from a total of 46,171 patients who received 138,866 CLP services were included. Results revealed more patients aged 75-84 years received CLPs than any other age group (29.7%) and the overall male/female ratio was 53:47 in 2016. In 2012 and 2016, 24.2 and 30.7% of CLP patients, respectively, were transferred to other hospitals; 9.7 and 8.8%, respectively, discharged due to the death. CLP services were provided in 14 prefectures in 2012 and 33 by 2016; 14 prefectures had no available CLP services. After adjusting for covariates, Tohoku (β = - 0.220, p < 0.034), Chugoku (β = - 0.160, p < 0.026), and Shikoku (β = - 0.555, p < 0.001) had a significant negative correlation with the number of consultations per CLP patient compared with Hokkaido region (an adjusted R square (R2) = 0.274).ConclusionsOur study clarified the characteristics of patients in Japan who received CLPs and the geographic disparity in CLP services. Although 5 years had passed since CLP was introduced, the results imply wide availability of CLP nationally. The analysis data provided may inform future policies to improve CLP services.

Dataset Information

The effects of collaborative care versus consultation liaison for anxiety disorders and depression in Denmark: two randomised controlled trials.

Background

Aims

Method

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The effects of collaborative care versus consultation liaison for anxiety disorders and depression in Denmark: two randomised controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets