Cover: The Design of Partners in Care

The Design of Partners in Care

Evaluating the Cost Effectiveness of Improving Care for Depression in Primary Care

Published 1999

by Kenneth B. Wells

Purchase Print Copy

 Format
Add to Cart Paperback10 pages Free

This paper describes a study design that blends health services and clinical research approaches to examine the cost-effectiveness of treatments and of quality improvement for depression in primary care, managed care practices. Six managed care organizations in Los Angeles (Calif.), San Antonio (Tex.), San Luis Valley (Colo.), Twin Cities (Minn.), and Columbia (Md.) participated. Primary care clinics were randomized to one of two quality improvement interventions or care as usual. Interventions included patient and provider education, nurse-assisted patient assessment, and resources to support appropriate medication management or access to cognitive behavioral therapy. Practices implemented the interventions with study support. Providers and patients selected treatment. Patients with depressive symptoms regardless of comorbidities were eligible. Over 27,000 primary care patients visiting the practices of 181 primary care clinicians were screened for depression, 14% were potentially eligible, and 1356 enrolled into the 2-year longitudinal study. Enrollees were similar to eligibles, but usual care clinic patients tended to be less severely depressed than intervention clinic patients, partly due to clinic staff enthusiasm. The result of the study showed that studying treatment effects and quality improvement in nonacademic settings is feasible, but requires relaxation of design features of experiments that protect internal validity. The trade-off between certainty of causal inference and generalizability to usual care conditions are discussed. The strengths and limitations of this study design are compared to those of clinical trials and recent clinical effectiveness studies.

Originally published in: Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, v. 34, 1999, pp. 20-29.

This report is part of the RAND reprint series. The Reprint was a product of RAND 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.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND 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.