Collaborative Care Intervention Research Articles

Collaborative Care for Chronic Pain After Traumatic Brain Injury

Chronic pain after traumatic brain injury (TBI) is prevalent and associated with poor outcomes. By providing multidisciplinary care through expert consultation, a collaborative care (CC) treatment approach may reduce pain interference. To compare CC with usual care (UC) in decreasing pain interference. This randomized clinical trial was conducted from July 2018 through April 2021 at 2 hospital-based academic rehabilitation medicine clinics in Seattle, Washington. Participants included adults with mild-to-severe TBI (at least 6 months before enrollment) and chronic pain. Data analysis was performed from March 30, 2022, to August 30, 2023. The CC intervention (called TBI Care) included up to 12 in-person or telephone visits over 16 weeks with a care manager (CM) who provided person-centered cognitive behavioral treatment. The CM met weekly with members of the expert team to review participants and discuss recommendations to optimize treatment. The primary outcome was pain interference on the Brief Pain Inventory at treatment conclusion (4 months after randomization). Secondary outcomes included pain interference at 8 months; pain severity; symptoms of depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbance; pain-related emergency department visits; community participation; and participant satisfaction. Linear mixed-effects regression was used for analysis. A total of 1379 individuals were screened for eligibility, and 158 were randomized (79 to CC and 79 to UC). The participants were mostly women (92 participants [58%]) with a mean (SD) age of 46.8 (13.2) years and a mean (SD) of 15.3 (3.0) years of education. TBI occurred a mean (SD) of 4.0 (5.9) years (median [IQR], 1.9 [0.8-4.5] years) before enrollment. All TBI severities were included, and of 149 participants for whom TBI severity was known, the majority (97 participants [65%]) had mild TBI. In the CC group, 71 participants (90%) completed at least 11 sessions, and, at 4 months, this group had significantly lower pain interference scores compared with the UC group (mean [SD], 3.46 [2.17] vs 5.03 [2.28]). This difference was maintained at 8 months after randomization, with mean (SD) TBI care pain interference scores of 3.61 (2.22) for CC vs 4.68 (2.51) for UC. At 4 months, there was significantly lower pain severity in the CC group vs UC group (mean [SD] score, 3.63 [1.95] vs 4.90 [1.96]), as well as symptoms of depression (mean [SD] score, 8.07 [5.34] vs 11.31 [6.37]) and anxiety (mean [SD], 6.20 [5.17] vs 9.58 [6.00]). Satisfaction with pain treatment (mean [SD] score, 2.99 [1.23] vs 2.52 [1.25]), clinical care (mean [SD] score, 3.28 [1.00] vs 2.84 [1.26]), and overall health care (mean [SD] score, 3.25 [0.88] vs 2.82 [1.00]) were significantly higher in the CC group vs the UC group; global impression of change was significantly lower in the CC group vs the UC group (mean [SD] score, 2.74 [1.02] vs 3.47 [1.26]) (lower scores denote a better impression of change). In this randomized clinical trial of CC compared with UC for patients with TBI, CC was effective at reducing pain interference and was sustained at 8-month follow-up. Further research is needed to examine the implementation and cost-effectiveness of CC for TBI in other health care settings. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03523923.

Collaborative Care for Injured Older Adults

Older adults with recent injuries can have impaired long-term biopsychosocial function and may benefit from interventions adapted to their needs. To determine if a collaborative care intervention, Trauma Medical Home (TMH), improved the biopsychosocial function of older patients in the year after injury. This was a single-blinded, randomized clinical trial conducted at 4 level I trauma centers in Indianapolis, Indiana, and Madison, Wisconsin. Between October 2017 and October 2021, patients aged 50 years and older with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 9 or greater and without traumatic brain or spinal cord injury were enrolled. Exclusions were significant brain injury or a spinal cord injury with a persistent neurologic deficit at the time of enrollment, extensive burns, pregnancy, incarceration, neurodegenerative disease, visual or auditory impairment that would preclude study participation, a life expectancy of less than 1 year, significant alcohol or drug use history, and acute stroke during admission. Of 10 276 patients screened, 430 were randomized and 299 completed 12-month follow-up. Data were analyzed from March to July 2023. Intervention patients received 6 months of TMH delivered by a nurse care coordinator guided by an interdisciplinary team (trauma surgeon, pulmonary critical care and geriatrician physicians, nurses, and psychologist) in partnership with primary care. The care coordinator used standard protocols to monitor and treat biopsychosocial symptoms. Primary outcomes were Medical Outcome Study Short Form-36 (SF-36) score and Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) score, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale-7 (GAD-7) score, and health care utilization. A total of 429 participants (228 [53.1%] female; mean [SD] age, 69.3 [10.8] years; mean [SD] ISS, 12.3 [4.6]) completed baseline assessments and were randomized. Follow-up was 76% (n = 324) at 6 months and 70% (n = 299) at 12 months. There were no differences between the TMH and usual care groups at 12 months in SF-36 Physical Component Summary score (mean [SD], 40.42 [12.82] vs 39.18 [12.43]), SF-36 Mental Component Summary score (mean [SD], 53.92 [10.02] vs 53.21 [10.82]), or SPPB score (mean [SD], 8.00 [3.60] vs 8.28 [3.88]). Secondary outcomes were also no different. Planned subgroup analysis revealed patients with baseline symptoms of anxiety or depression (high GAD-7 and PHQ-9 scores) experienced improvement in the Mental Component Summary score when randomized to the TMH intervention. The TMH intervention did not significantly influence quality of life, depressive and anxiety symptoms, or physical function of older adults with injury at 12 months. Subgroup analysis showed positive impact in patients with a high burden of anxiety and depression symptoms at enrollment. Collaborative care interventions may improve long-term outcomes of select patients, but further research is needed. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03108820.

Collaborative Care Intervention Following Injury in Older Adults

Collaborative Care Intervention Following Injury in Older Adults

Collaborative care approaches for people with severe mental illness.

Collaborative care for severe mental illness (SMI) is a community-based intervention that promotes interdisciplinary working across primary and secondary care. Collaborative care interventions aim to improve the physical and/or mental health care of individuals with SMI. This is an update of a 2013 Cochrane review, based on new searches of the literature, which includes an additional seven studies. To assess the effectiveness of collaborative care approaches in comparison with standard care (or other non-collaborative care interventions) for people with diagnoses of SMI who are living in the community. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Study-Based Register of Trials (10 February 2021). We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders (CCMD) controlled trials register (all available years to 6 June 2016). Subsequent searches on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO together with the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (with an overlap) were run on 17 December 2021. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where interventions described as 'collaborative care' were compared with 'standard care' for adults (18+ years) living in the community with a diagnosis of SMI. SMI was defined as schizophrenia, other types of schizophrenia-like psychosis or bipolar affective disorder. The primary outcomes of interest were: quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions at 12 months follow-up. Pairs of authors independently extracted data. We assessed the quality and certainty of the evidence using RoB 2 (for the primary outcomes) and GRADE. We compared treatment effects between collaborative care and standard care. We divided outcomes into short-term (up to six months), medium-term (seven to 12 months) and long-term (over 12 months). For dichotomous data we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and for continuous data we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used random-effects meta-analyses due to substantial levels of heterogeneity across trials. We created a summary of findings table using GRADEpro. Eight RCTs (1165 participants) are included in this review. Two met the criteria for type A collaborative care (intervention comprised of the four core components). The remaining six met the criteria for type B (described as collaborative care by the trialists, but not comprised of the four core components). The composition and purpose of the interventions varied across studies. For most outcomes there was low- or very low-certainty evidence. We found three studies that assessed the quality of life of participants at 12 months. Quality of life was measured using the SF-12 and the WHOQOL-BREF and the mean endpoint mental health component scores were reported at 12 months. Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (mental health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.32; 3 RCTs, 227 participants). Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (physical health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.33; 3 RCTs, 237 participants). Furthermore, in the medium term (at 12 months) low-certainty evidence did not show a difference between collaborative care and standard care in mental state (binary) (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.28; 1 RCT, 253 participants) or in the risk of being admitted to a psychiatric hospital at 12 months (RR 5.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 39.57; 1 RCT, 253 participants). One study indicated an improvement in disability (proxy for social functioning) at 12 months in the collaborative care arm compared to usual care (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.95; 1 RCT, 253 participants); we deemed this low-certainty evidence. Personal recovery and satisfaction/experience of care outcomes were not reported in any of the included studies. The data from one study indicated that the collaborative care treatment was more expensive than standard care (mean difference (MD) international dollars (Int$) 493.00, 95% CI 345.41 to 640.59) in the short term. Another study found the collaborative care intervention to be slightly less expensive at three years. This review does not provide evidence to indicate that collaborative care is more effective than standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) in relation to our primary outcomes (quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions). The evidence would be improved by better reporting, higher-quality RCTs and the assessment of underlying mechanisms of collaborative care. We advise caution in utilising the information in this review to assess the effectiveness of collaborative care.

Appropriate Prescribing for older adults with Multimorbidity (Pro-M): protocol for a feasibility study

BackgroundPotentially inappropriate prescribing is common among older adults with multimorbidity due to various reasons, from concurrent application of multiple single-disease clinical guidelines to fragmentation of care. Interventions such as medication review have been implemented worldwide to reduce inappropriate prescribing for older adults. However, the implementability of such interventions are underexplored in the outpatient clinics in Singapore’s public hospitals. Hence, the Pro-M study aims to assess the feasibility of implementing a physician-pharmacist collaborative care intervention in geriatric medicine outpatient clinics to facilitate appropriate prescribing for older adults in Singapore.MethodsThis is a single-arm, non-randomised feasibility study using a pre-post evaluation design. This study consists of two parts: (1) implementation phase of the intervention (6 months) and an (2) evaluation phase (3 months). Eligible patients will be recruited from geriatric medicine outpatient clinics at two public hospitals in Singapore through convenience sampling. The main components of the Pro-M intervention are: (1) pharmacist-facilitated medication reviews with feedback on any medication issues and potential recommendations to physicians, and (2) physicians communicating changes to other relevant prescribers. The evaluation phase will involve surveying and interviewing physicians and pharmacists involved in the implementation of the intervention. A mixed-method approach will be employed for data collection and analysis. The quantitative and qualitative findings will be triangulated and reported using Proctor’s implementation outcomes: appropriateness, penetration, acceptability, fidelity, feasibility, and sustainability. A basic cost analysis will be conducted alongside the study.DiscussionThis is a phase 2 study to test the feasibility of implementing an intervention that was co-created with stakeholders during phase 1 development of an intervention to optimise prescribing for older adults with multimorbidity. The implementation will be assessed using Proctor’s implementation outcomes to provide insights on the process and the feasibility of implementing medication reviews for older adults with multimorbidity as a routine practice in outpatient clinics. Data collected from this study will inform a subsequent scale-up study.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05756478. Registered on 06 March 2023.

Healthcare needs in elderly patients with chronic heart failure in view of a personalized blended collaborative care intervention: a cross sectional study.

Few studies explored healthcare needs of elderly heart failure (HF) patients with comorbidities in view of a personalized intervention conducted by Care Managers (CM) in the framework of Blended Collaborative Care (BCC). The aims of the present study were to: (1) identify perceived healthcare needs/preferences in elderly patients with HF prior to a CM intervention; (2) investigate possible associations between healthcare needs/preferences, sociodemographic variables (age; sex) and number of comorbidities. Patients aged 65 years or more affected by HF with at least 2 medical comorbidities were enrolled in the study. They were assessed by structured interviewing with colored cue cards that represented six main topics including education, individual tailoring of treatment, monitoring, support, coordination, and communication, related to healthcare needs and preferences. Thirty-three patients (Italy = 21, Denmark = 7, Germany = 5; mean age = 75.2 ± 7.7 years; males 63.6%) were enrolled from June 2021 to February 2022. Major identified needs included: HF information (education), patients' involvement in treatment-related management (individual tailoring of treatment), regular checks of HF symptoms (monitoring), general practitioner update by a CM about progression of symptoms and health behaviors (coordination), and telephone contacts with the CM (communication). Regarding communication modalities with a CM, males preferred phone calls (χ2 = 6.291, p = 0.043) and mobile messaging services (χ2 = 9.647, p = 0.008), whereas females preferred in-person meetings and a patient dashboard. No differences in needs and preferences according to age and number of comorbidities were found. The findings highlight specific healthcare needs and preferences in older HF multimorbid patients, allowing a more personalized intervention delivered by CM in the framework of BCC.

Patient, family caregiver, and economic outcomes of an integrated screening and novel stepped collaborative care intervention in the oncology setting in the USA (CARES): a randomised, parallel, phase 3 trial

The current standard of care of screening and referring patients for treatment for symptoms, such as depression, pain, and fatigue, is not effective. This trial aimed to test the efficacy of an integrated screening and novel stepped collaborative care intervention versus standard of care for patients with cancer and at least one of the following symptoms: depression, pain, or fatigue. This randomised, parallel, phase 3 trial was conducted in 29 oncology outpatient clinics associated with the UPMC Hillman Cancer Center in the USA. Patients (aged ≥21 years) with any cancer type and clinical levels of depression, pain, or fatigue (or all of these) were eligible. Eligible family caregivers were aged 21 years or older and providing care to a patient diagnosed with cancer who consented for this study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to stepped collaborative care or standard of care using a central, permuted block design (sizes of 2, 4, and 6) stratified by sex and prognostic status. The biostatistician, oncologists, and outcome assessors were masked to treatment assignment. Stepped collaborative care was once-weekly cognitive behavioural therapy for 50-60 min from a care coordinator via telemedicine (eg, telephone or videoconferencing). Pharmacotherapy for symptoms might be initiated or changed if recommended by the treatment team or preferred by the patient. Standard of care was screening and referral to a health-care provider for treatment of symptoms. The primary outcome was health-related quality of life in patients at 6 months. Maintenance of the treatment benefits was assessed at 12 months. Participants included in the primary analysis were per intention to treat, which included patients missing one or both follow-up assessments. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02939755). Between Dec 5, 2016, and April 8, 2021, 459 patients and 190 family caregivers were enrolled. 222 patients were assigned to standard of care and 237 to stepped collaborative care. Of 459 patients, 201 (44%) were male and 258 (56%) were female. Patients in the stepped collaborative care group had a greater 0-6-month improvement in health-related quality of life than patients in the standard-of-care group (p=0·013, effect size 0·09). Health-related quality of life was maintained for the stepped collaborative care group (p=0·74, effect size 0·01). Patients in the stepped collaborative care group had greater 0-6-month improvements than the standard-of-care group in emotional (p=0·012), functional (p=0·042), and physical (p=0·033) wellbeing. No adverse events were reported by patients in either group and deaths were considered unrelated to the study. An integrated screening and novel stepped collaborative care intervention, compared with the current standard of care, is recommended to improve health-related quality of life. The findings of this study will advance the implementation of guideline concordant care (screening and treatment) and has the potential to shift the practice of screening and treatment paradigm nationwide, improving outcomes for patients diagnosed with cancer. US National Cancer Institute.

Mobile Critical Care Recovery Program for Survivors of Acute Respiratory Failure

Over 50% of Acute Respiratory Failure (ARF) survivors experience cognitive, physical, and psychological impairments that negatively impact their quality of life (QOL). To evaluate the efficacy of a post-intensive care unit (ICU) program, the Mobile Critical Care Recovery Program (m-CCRP) consisting of a nurse care coordinator supported by an interdisciplinary team, in improving the QOL of ARF survivors. This randomized clinical trial with concealed outcome assessments among ARF survivors was conducted from March 1, 2017, to April 30, 2022, with a 12-month follow-up. Patients were admitted to the ICU services of 4 Indiana hospitals (1 community, 1 county, 2 academic), affiliated with the Indiana University School of Medicine. A 12-month nurse-led collaborative care intervention (m-CCRP) supported by an interdisciplinary group of clinicians (2 intensivists, 1 geriatrician, 1 ICU nurse, and 1 neuropsychologist) was compared with a telephone-based control. The intervention comprised longitudinal symptom monitoring coupled with nurse-delivered care protocols targeting cognition, physical function, personal care, mobility, sleep disturbances, pain, depression, anxiety, agitation or aggression, delusions or hallucinations, stress and physical health, legal and financial needs, and medication adherence. The primary outcome was QOL as measured by the 36-item Medical Outcomes Study Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS), with scores on each component ranging from 0-100, and higher scores indicating better health status. In an intention-to-treat analysis among 466 ARF survivors (mean [SD] age, 56.1 [14.4] years; 250 [53.6%] female; 233 assigned to each group), the m-CCRP intervention for 12 months did not significantly improve the QOL compared with the control group (estimated difference in change from baseline between m-CCRP and control group: 1.61 [95% CI, -1.06 to 4.29] for SF-36 PCS; -2.50 [95% CI, -5.29 to 0.30] for SF-36 MCS. Compared with the control group, the rates of hospitalization were higher in the m-CCRP group (117 [50.2%] vs 95 [40.8%]; P = .04), whereas the 12-month mortality rates were not statistically significantly lower (24 [10.3%] vs 38 [16.3%]; P = .05). Findings from this randomized clinical trial indicated that a nurse-led 12-month comprehensive interdisciplinary care intervention did not significantly improve the QOL of ARF survivors after ICU hospitalization. These results suggest that further research is needed to identify specific patient groups who could benefit from tailored post-ICU interventions. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03053245.

The Effectiveness of the Case Manager-Centered Collaborative Care Model with Computer-Assisted Assessment on Quality Indicators for the Care of Dementia.

This study aimed to investigate the influence of case management and its corresponding computer-assisted assessment system on the quality improvement of dementia care. This observational study enrolled 2029 patients and their caregivers at Changhua Christian Hospital in Taiwan. Physicians who made the diagnosis of dementia would introduce the patient and caregiver dyad to the case manager-centered collaborative care team after obtaining agreement. The achievement rates of 11 quality indicators (QIs) comprising timely diagnostic evaluations, regular screens of cognition and neuropsychiatric symptoms, caregiver support, and proper medication prescriptions were counted. Different timeframes (≤4 months, 4 months-1 year, 1-2 years, 2-3 years, or ≥3 years) from diagnosis of dementia to collaborative care intervention were compared. A significantly higher attainment rate was achieved for patients with earlier entry into the collaborative team model, including QIs about timely diagnosis and regular screening, and caregiver support. The QIs regarding dementia medication prescriptions and documentation of the risk of antipsychotics remained similar regardless of the time of entry into the model. The completion rates of QIs also improved after the information system was launched. Physician-case manager co-management in the setting of a collaborative care model with a computer-assisted assessment system helps improve QI achievement for dementia care.

Can stepped collaborative care interventions improve post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms for racial and ethnic minority injury survivors?

ObjectivesNo large-scale randomized clinical trial investigations have evaluated the potential differential effectiveness of early interventions for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among injured patients from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds. The...

Subthreshold opioid use disorder prevention (STOP) trial: a cluster randomized clinical trial: study design and methods

BackgroundPreventing progression to moderate or severe opioid use disorder (OUD) among people who exhibit risky opioid use behavior that does not meet criteria for treatment with opioid agonists or antagonists (subthreshold OUD) is poorly understood. The Subthreshold Opioid Use Disorder Prevention (STOP) Trial is designed to study the efficacy of a collaborative care intervention to reduce risky opioid use and to prevent progression to moderate or severe OUD in adult primary care patients with subthreshold OUD.MethodsThe STOP trial is a cluster randomized controlled trial, randomized at the PCP level, conducted in 5 distinct geographic sites. STOP tests the efficacy of the STOP intervention in comparison to enhanced usual care (EUC) in adult primary care patients with risky opioid use that does not meet criteria for moderate-severe OUD. The STOP intervention consists of (1) a practice-embedded nurse care manager (NCM) who provides patient participant education and supports primary care providers (PCPs) in engaging and monitoring patient-participants; (2) brief advice, delivered to patient participants by their PCP and/or prerecorded video message, about health risks of opioid misuse; and (3) up to 6 sessions of telephone health coaching to motivate and support behavior change. EUC consists of primary care treatment as usual, plus printed overdose prevention educational materials and an educational video on cancer screening. The primary outcome measure is self-reported number of days of risky (illicit or nonmedical) opioid use over 180 days, assessed monthly via text message using items from the Addiction Severity Index and the Current Opioid Misuse Measure. Secondary outcomes assess other substance use, mental health, quality of life, and healthcare utilization as well as PCP prescribing and monitoring behaviors. A mixed effects negative binomial model with a log link will be fit to estimate the difference in means between treatment and control groups using an intent-to-treat population.DiscussionGiven a growing interest in interventions for the management of patients with risky opioid use, and the need for primary care-based interventions, this study potentially offers a blueprint for a feasible and effective approach to improving outcomes in this population.Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT04218201, January 6, 2020.

Needs of multimorbid heart failure patients and their carers: a qualitative interview study and the creation of personas as a basis for a blended collaborative care intervention.

Involving patients and carers in the development of blended collaborative care (BCC) interventions for multimorbid heart failure (HF) patients is recommended but rarely practised, and research on the patient perspective is scarce. The aim of this study is to investigate patients' and carers' care-related needs and preferences to better customize a novel international BCC intervention. A qualitative study design using framework analysis was employed. The study was performed in accordance with the EQUATOR standards for reporting qualitative research (SRQR). Patients aged at least 65 years with HF and at least two other physical diseases as well as their carers completed semistructured interviews in Germany, Italy, and Denmark. Based on these interviews, personas (prototype profiles of patients and carers) were created. Data from interviews with 25 patients and 17 carers were analysed. Initially, seven country-specific personas were identified, which were iteratively narrowed down to a final set of 3 personas: (a) the one who needs and wants support, (b) the one who has accepted their situation with HF and reaches out when necessary, and (c) the one who feels neglected by the health care system. Carers identifying with the last persona showed high levels of psychological stress and a high need for support. This is the first international qualitative study on patients' and carers' needs regarding a BCC intervention using the creation of personas. Across three European countries, data from interviews were used to develop three contrasting personas. Instead of providing "one size fits all" interventions, the results indicate that BCC interventions should offer different approaches based on the needs of individual patients and carers. The personas will serve as a basis for the development of a novel BCC intervention as part of the EU project ESCAPE (Evaluation of a patient-centred biopSychosocial blended collaborative CAre Pathway for the treatment of multimorbid Elderly patients).

A computer-assisted telephone collaborative care intervention provided by lay providers for the treatment of comorbid depression and at-risk drinking: Analysis of a randomized controlled trial

IntroductionVirtual collaborative care for people with comorbid depression and at-risk drinking lacks strong evidence. Our aim was to assess the impact of 12 months of telephone collaborative care (tCC) versus enhanced usual care (eUC) on depression and drinking. MethodsWe performed a secondary analysis of the Primary care Assessment and Research of a Telephone intervention for Neuropsychiatric conditions with Education and Resources study (PARTNERs), a blinded randomized controlled trial. We examined 144 participants with comorbid depression and at-risk drinking, of which 129 were from the original sample whose data have been published, and 15 were studied since the original report had been published. PARTNERs compared eUC consisting of usual care plus assessment of symptoms at baseline, and 4, 8, and 12 months later vs. tCC consisting of eUC plus telephone-based coaching and symptom monitoring provided by a lay mental health technician to patients supervised by a psychiatrist. The study assessed depression response and remission using logistic regression; we assessed trajectory of drinking using Generalized-estimating equations (GEE). Baseline factors associated with likelihood of not exceeding number of drinks at 12 months were identified using decision trees. ResultstCC produced a faster decline in the number of drinks than eUC (Wald Χ2 = 9.47, p = 0.02). However, drinking and depression outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups at the end of treatment. Higher alcohol consumption at baseline (≥18 standard drinks per week in the tCC group and ≥11 standard drinks per week in the eUC group) was associated with a higher likelihood of having at-risk drinking after 12 months of treatment. ConclusionsOur findings suggest that, compared to eUC, tCC may accelerate drinking reductions in patients with comorbid depression and at-risk drinking. Both treatments were equally effective at the end of treatment for both depression and drinking outcomes.

Delirium and neuropsychological recovery among emergency general surgery survivors (DANE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial and collaborative care intervention

BackgroundDelirium is a complex neuropsychiatric syndrome which consists of acute and varying changes in cognition and consciousness. Patients who develop delirium are at increased risk for a constellation of physical, cognitive, and psychological disabilities long after the delirium has ended. Collaborative care models integrating primary and specialty care in order to address patients with complex biopsychosocial needs have been demonstrated to improve outcomes in patients with chronic diseases. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the ability of a collaborative care model on the neuropsychologic recovery of delirium survivors following emergency surgery.MethodsThis protocol describes a multicenter (eight hospitals in three states) randomized controlled trial in which 528 patients who develop delirium following emergency surgery will be randomized to either a collaborative care model or usual care. The efficacy of the collaborative care model on cognitive, physical, and psychological recovery in these delirium survivors will then be evaluated over 18 months.DiscussionThis will be among the first randomized clinical trials in postoperative delirium survivors evaluating an intervention designed to mitigate the downstream effects of delirium and improve the neuropsychologic recovery after surgery. We hope that the results of this study will add to and inform strategies to improve postoperative recovery in this patient group.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05373017. Registered on May 12, 2022.

Responding to distress in cancer care: Increasing access to psycho oncology services through integrated collaborative care.

Despite increased attention to the utility of collaborative care models for promoting whole-person care in cancer populations, there is a paucity of empirical research testing the impact of these care models on effectively identifying and serving highly distressed cancer patients. This study sought to experimentally test the effectiveness of a year-long collaborative care program on referral rates to psycho-oncology services for patients with moderate to high distress. Data for this study consisted of 11,467 adult patients with cancer who were screened for psychosocial distress 6-months prior to, and following, the integrated collaborative care intervention. Psychosocial referral rates pre-, peri- and post- intervention were analyzed. Findings indicated high distress patients were at 3.76 (95% CI [2.40, 5.87]), 5.03 (95% CI [3.25, 7.76]), and 7.62 (95% CI [5.34, 10.87]) times increased odds of being referred during the pre-intervention, peri-intervention, and post-intervention, respectively, when compared to low distress patients, and these differences across time were significantly different (p=0.04). Findings from this study suggest that the successful initiation of a collaborative care model within a comprehensive cancer center contributed to significantly greater referral rates of cancer patients with moderate to high distress to psycho-oncology services. This study contributes to the growing consensus that collaborative care models can positively impact the care of complex medical patients.

Stepped collaborative care for pain and posttraumatic stress disorder after major trauma: a randomized controlled feasibility trial

Purpose To examine feasibility and acceptability of providing stepped collaborative care case management targeting posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and pain symptoms after major traumatic injury. Materials and methods Participants were major trauma survivors in Victoria, Australia, at risk of persistent pain or PTSD with high baseline symptoms. Participants were block-randomized, stratified by compensation-status, to the usual care (n = 15) or intervention (n = 17) group (46% of eligible patients). The intervention was adapted from existing stepped collaborative care interventions with input from interdisciplinary experts and people with lived experience in trauma and disability. The proactive case management intervention targeted PTSD and pain management for 6-months using motivational interviewing, cognitive behavioral therapy strategies, and collaborative care. Qualitative interviews explored intervention acceptability. Results Intervention participants received a median of 7 h case manager contact and reported that they valued the supportive and non-judgmental listening, and timely access to effective strategies, resources, and treatments post-injury from the case manager. Participants reported few disadvantages from participation, and positive impacts on symptoms and recovery outcomes consistent with the reduction in PTSD and pain symptoms measured at 1-, 3- and 6-months. Conclusions Stepped collaborative care was low-cost, feasible, and acceptable to people at risk of PTSD or pain after major trauma. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION After hospitalization for injury, people can experience difficulty accessing timely support to manage posttraumatic stress, pain and other concerns. Stepped case management-based interventions that provide individualized support and collaborative care have reduced posttraumatic stress symptom severity for patients admitted to American trauma centers. We showed that this model of care could be adapted to target pain and mental health in the trauma system in Victoria, Australia. The intervention was low cost, acceptable and highly valued by most participants who perceived that it helped them use strategies to better manage post-traumatic symptoms, and to access clinicians and treatments relevant to their needs.

Effect of collaborative care intervention on productivity losses among people with comorbid common mental disorders and cardiovascular disease in rural Karnataka.

Common mental disorders (CMD) and cardiovascular diseases (CVD), common health problems among patients seeking primary healthcare, contribute to high economic productivity losses. Collaborative care programs for CMDs and CVDs have shown improvement in clinical outcomes for both conditions; however, data on productivity outcomes are scarce. Objective: Effect of integrated collaborative care on productivity among people with comorbid CMD and CVD in rural Karnataka primary health clinics. Participants were recruited within a randomized trial in rural South India, where patients received either collaborative or enhanced standard care. In this substudy, 303 participants were followed for 3 months and assessed with the iMTA Productivity Cost Questionnaire (iPCQ). We found a reduction in the proportion of individuals reporting productivity loss at 3 months (66%) compared to baseline (76%; P = 0.002). Productivity losses decreased from INR 30.3 per person per day at baseline to 17.7 at 3 months. Reductions were similar in the two treatment conditions. Medical intervention may foster reduced productivity losses among patients with CMD and CVD. Collaborative care did not translate into higher reductions in productivity losses than "enhanced standard care."

Findings from an Organizational Context Survey to Inform the Implementation of a Collaborative Care Study for Co-occurring Disorders

Primary care is an opportune setting to deliver treatments for co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders; however, treatment delivery can be challenging due multi-level implementation barriers. Documenting organizational context can provide insight into implementation barriers and the adaptation of new processes into usual care workflows. This study surveyed primary care and behavioral health staff from 13 clinics implementing a collaborative care intervention for opioid use disorders co-occurring with PTSD and/or depression as part of a multisite randomized controlled trial. A total of 323 completed an online survey for a 60% response rate. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided this assessment of multi-level factors that influence implementation. Most areas for improvement focused on inner setting (organizational level) constructs whereas individual-level constructs tended to be strengths. This work addresses a research gap regarding how organizational analyses can be used prior to implementation and provides practical implications for researchers and clinic leaders.

Using multiple approaches to develop a physician-pharmacist collaborative care intervention to facilitate appropriate prescribing for older adults with multimorbidity

Background and objectivesThis article discusses the development process of an intervention to facilitate appropriate prescribing for older adults with multimorbidity at geriatric medicine outpatient clinics. Both effectiveness and implementability were key aims, which were achieved by a systematic combination of different approaches guided by published guidance. MethodsVarious frameworks and tools were used to guide the intervention development. They include The Medical Research Council Framework for complex health interventions as the overarching framework, supplemented by the Framework of Actions for Intervention Development and a taxonomy of intervention development approaches. ResultsA combination of theory and evidence-based-, implementation-based and partnership approaches were used to develop the intervention. The Behaviour Change Wheel and Theoretical Domains Framework were used for intervention design. Three scoping reviews and two modified Delphi studies were conducted to build an evidence base on prescribing-related barriers and existing interventions. The findings were synthesised, assessed for implementability, and culminated in a co-creation exercise with physicians and pharmacists. The final intervention aims to facilitate collaboration between physicians and pharmacists and to improve communication and documentation of prescribing decisions. ConclusionsMultiple approaches may be required when developing interventions that are effective and implementable. The study team's experiences in using published guidance, integrating different approaches, and co-creating the intervention with healthcare professionals provide a useful case study with lessons and insights for developers of complex interventions. Furthermore, systematic reporting of such research-based efforts would contribute to advancement of intervention development in healthcare and reducing research waste.

Effects of Technology Assisted Stepped Collaborative Care Intervention to Improve Symptoms in Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis

Patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) undergoing long-term hemodialysis often experience a high burden of debilitating symptoms for which effective treatment options are limited. To compare the effectiveness of a stepped collaborative care intervention vs attention control for reducing fatigue, pain, and depression among patients with ESKD undergoing long-term hemodialysis. Technology Assisted Stepped Collaborative Care (TĀCcare) was a parallel-group, single-blinded, randomized clinical trial of adult (≥18 years) patients undergoing long-term hemodialysis and experiencing clinically significant levels of fatigue, pain, and/or depression for which they were considering treatment. The trial took place in 2 US states (New Mexico and Pennsylvania) from March 1, 2018, to June 31, 2022. Data analyses were performed from July 1, 2022, to April 10, 2023. The intervention group received 12 weekly sessions of cognitive behavioral therapy delivered via telehealth in the hemodialysis unit or patient home, and/or pharmacotherapy using a stepped approach in collaboration with dialysis and primary care teams. The attention control group received 6 telehealth sessions of health education. The coprimary outcomes were changes in fatigue (measured using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue), average pain severity (Brief Pain Inventory), and/or depression (Beck Depression Inventory-II) scores at 3 months. Patients were followed up for 12 months to assess maintenance of intervention effects. There were 160 participants (mean [SD] age, 58 [14] years; 72 [45%] women and 88 [55%] men; 21 [13%] American Indian, 45 [28%] Black, 28 [18%] Hispanic, and 83 [52%] White individuals) randomized, 83 to the intervention and 77 to the control group. In the intention-to-treat analyses, when compared with controls, patients in the intervention group experienced statistically and clinically significant reductions in fatigue (mean difference [md], 2.81; 95% CI, 0.86 to 4.75; P = .01) and pain severity (md, -0.96; 95% CI, -1.70 to -0.23; P = .02) at 3 months. These effects were sustained at 6 months (md, 3.73; 95% CI, 0.87 to 6.60; P = .03; and BPI, -1.49; 95% CI, -2.58 to -0.40; P = .02). Improvement in depression at 3 months was statistically significant but small (md -1.73; 95% CI, -3.18 to -0.28; P = .02). Adverse events were similar in both groups. This randomized clinical trial found that a technology assisted stepped collaborative care intervention delivered during hemodialysis led to modest but clinically meaningful improvements in fatigue and pain at 3 months vs the control group, with effects sustained until 6 months. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03440853.