Download Free Electronic Document

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.2 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

OBJECTIVE: The authors investigated whether quality improvement programs for depression would be effective among substance misusers and whether there would be a differential program-by-comorbidity effect.

METHOD: A group-level randomized controlled trial (Partners in Care) compared two quality improvement programs for depression with usual care. Consecutive patients (N=27,332) from six managed care organizations in five states were screened, and 1,356 were enrolled: 443 received usual care while the rest entered a quality improvement program involving either medication (N=424) or therapy (N=489). Multiple logistic regression was used to test hypotheses and compute standardized predictions of the adjusted rates of depression and use of psychotherapy and antidepressants.

RESULTS: Under usual care conditions, depressed patients with substance misuse had an increased probability of ongoing depression despite higher rates of overall appropriate treatment. Among clients with comorbid substance misuse, the quality improvement programs were associated with improved depression outcomes at 12 months and increased antidepressant use at 6 months. Among clients with no substance misuse, the quality improvement programs improved depression outcomes at 6 months and were associated with increased treatment utilization.

CONCLUSIONS: Co-occurring substance misuse is associated with depression and with increased risk for poorer depression treatment outcomes under usual care conditions. Quality improvement programs can significantly reduce the likelihood of probable depressive disorders in depressed patients with and without comorbid substance misuse. No consistent evidence was found for a differential program-by-comorbidity effect except for a suggestion of greater increase in psychotherapy among individuals with no substance misuse.

Reprinted with permission from the American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 163, No. 1, Jan. 2006, pp. 125-132. Copyright © 2006 American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.

Originally published in: American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 163, No. 1, Jan. 2006, pp. 125-132.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation reprint series. The Reprint was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1992 to 2011 that represented previously published journal articles, book chapters, and reports with the permission of the publisher. RAND reprints were formally reviewed in accordance with the publisher's editorial policy and compliant with RAND's rigorous quality assurance standards for quality and objectivity. For select current RAND journal articles, see External Publications.

Permission is given to duplicate this electronic document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND Permissions page.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.