Objective

Community Partners in Care, a community-partnered, cluster-randomized trial with depressed clients from 95 Los Angeles health and community programs, examined the added value of a community coalition approach (Community Engagement and Planning [CEP]) versus individual program technical assistance (Resources for Services [RS]) to implement depression collaborative care in underserved communities. This exploratory subanalysis examines 6- and 12-month outcomes among CPIC participants aged >50 years.

Design

Community-partnered, cluster-randomized trial conducted between April 2010 and March 2012.

Setting

Hollywood-Metropolitan (HM) and South Los Angeles (SLA) Service Planning Areas (SPAs), Los Angeles, California.

Participants

394 participants aged >50 years with depressive symptoms (8-item Patient Health Questionnaire score ≥ 10).

Intervention

A community-partnered multi-sector coalition approach (Community Engagement and Planning [CEP]) vs individual program technical assistance (Resources for Services [RS]) to implement depression collaborative care.

Main outcome measures

Depressive symptoms (PHQ-8 score), mental health-related quality of life (MHRQL), community-prioritized outcomes including mental wellness, homelessness risk and physical activity, and services utilization.

Results

At 6 months, CEP was more effective than RS at improving MHRQL and mental wellness among participants aged >50 years; no differences were found in the effects of CEP vs RS on other outcomes. No significant outcome differences between CEP and RS were found at 12 months.

Conclusions

A multisector community coalition approach may offer additional benefits over individual program technical assistance to improve outcomes among depressed adults aged >50 years living in underserved communities.

Objective

Community Partners in Care, a community-partnered, cluster-randomized trial with depressed clients from 93 Los Angeles health and community programs, examined the added value of a community coalition approach (Community Engagement and Planning [CEP]) versus individual program technical assistance (Resources for Services [RS]) for implementing depression quality improvement in underserved communities. CEP was more effective than RS in improving mental health-related quality of life, reducing behavioral health hospitalizations, and shifting services toward community-based programs at six months. At 12 months, continued evidence of improvement was found. This study examined three-year outcomes.

Methods

Among 1,004 participants with depression who were eligible for three-year follow-up, 600 participants from 89 programs completed surveys. Multiple regression analyses estimated intervention effects on poor mental health-related quality of life and depression, physical health-related quality of life, behavioral health hospital nights, and use of services.

Results

At three years, no differences were found in the effects of CEP versus RS on depression or mental health-related quality of life, but CEP had modest effects in improving physical health-related quality of life and reducing behavioral health hospital nights, and CEP participants had more social- and community-sector depression visits and greater use of mood stabilizers. Sensitivity analyses with longitudinal modeling reproduced these findings but found no significant differences between groups in change from baseline to three years.

Conclusions

At three years, CEP and RS did not have differential effects on primary mental health outcomes, but CEP participants had modest improvements in physical health and fewer behavioral health hospital nights.

Objective

The effectiveness of community coalition building and program technical assistance was compared in implementation of collaborative care for depression among health care and community sector clients.

Methods

In under-resourced communities, within 93 programs randomly assigned to coalition building (Community Engagement and Planning) or program technical assistance (Resources for Services) models, 1,018 clients completed surveys at baseline and at six, 12, or 36 months. Regression analysis was used to estimate intervention effects and intervention-by-sector interaction effects on depression, mental health-related quality of life, and community-prioritized outcomes and on services use.

Results

For outcomes, there were few significant intervention-by-sector interactions, and stratified findings suggested benefits of coalition building in both sectors. For services use, at 36 months, increases were found for coalition building in primary care visits, self-help visits, and appropriate treatment for community clients and in community-based services use for health care clients.

Conclusions

Relative to program technical assistance, community coalition building benefited clients across sectors and shifted long-term utilization across sectors.