UCLA

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.