4.6 Article

Long-Term Benefits of Short-Term Quality Improvement Interventions for Depressed Youths in Primary Care

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY
卷 166, 期 9, 页码 1002-1010

出版社

AMER PSYCHIATRIC PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2009.08121909

关键词

-

资金

  1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [HS09908]
  2. NIMH [P30 MH068639]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Quality improvement programs for depressed youths in primary care settings have been shown to improve 6-month clinical outcomes, but longer-term outcomes are unknown. The authors examined 6-, 12-, and 18-month outcomes of a primary care quality improvement intervention. Method: Primary care patients 13-21 years of age with current depressive symptoms were randomly assigned to a 6- month quality improvement intervention (N=211) or to treatment as usual enhanced with provider training (N=207). The quality improvement intervention featured expert leader teams to oversee implementation of the intervention; clinical care managers trained in cognitive-behavioral therapy for depression to support patient evaluation and treatment; and support for patient and provider choice of treatments. Results: The quality improvement intervention, relative to enhanced treatment as usual, lowered the likelihood of severe depression (Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale score >= 24) at 6 months; a similar trend at 18 months was not statistically significant. Path analyses revealed a significant indirect intervention effect on long-term depression due to the initial intervention improvement at 6 months. Conclusions: In this randomized effectiveness trial of a primary care quality improvement intervention for depressed youths, the main effect of the intervention on outcomes was to decrease the likelihood of severe depression at the 6-month outcome assessment. These early intervention-related improvements conferred additional long-term protection through a favorable shift in illness course through 12 and 18 months.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据