Skip to main content
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart
  • Follow ada on Twitter
  • RSS
  • Visit ada on Facebook
Diabetes Care

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Diabetes Care
  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
Epidemiology/Health Services Research

Collaborative Care Versus Screening and Follow-up for Patients With Diabetes and Depressive Symptoms: Results of a Primary Care–Based Comparative Effectiveness Trial

  1. Jeffrey A. Johnson1,2⇑,
  2. Fatima Al Sayah1,2,
  3. Lisa Wozniak2,
  4. Sandra Rees2,
  5. Allison Soprovich2,
  6. Weiyu Qiu2,
  7. Constance L. Chik3,
  8. Pierre Chue4,5,
  9. Peter Florence4,
  10. Jennifer Jacquier3,
  11. Pauline Lysak5,
  12. Andrea Opgenorth3,
  13. Wayne Katon6 and
  14. Sumit R. Majumdar1,2,3
  1. 1School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
  2. 2Alliance for Canadian Health Outcomes Research, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
  3. 3Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
  4. 4Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
  5. 5Department of Psychiatry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
  6. 6Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
  1. Corresponding author: Jeffrey A. Johnson, jeff.johnson{at}ualberta.ca.
Diabetes Care 2014 Dec; 37(12): 3220-3226. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc14-1308
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Suppl Material
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Depressive symptoms are common and, when coexisting with diabetes, worsen outcomes and increase health care costs. We evaluated a nurse case-manager–based collaborative primary care team model to improve depressive symptoms in diabetic patients.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We conducted a controlled implementation trial in four nonmetropolitan primary care networks. Eligible patients had type 2 diabetes and screened positive for depressive symptoms, based on a Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) score of ≥10. Patients were allocated using an “on-off” monthly time series. Intervention consisted of case-managers working 1:1 with patients to deliver individualized care. The main outcome was improvement in PHQ scores at 12 months. A concurrent cohort of 71 comparable patients was used as nonscreened usual care control subjects.

RESULTS Of 1,924 patients screened, 476 (25%) had a PHQ score >10. Of these, 95 were allocated to intervention and 62 to active control. There were no baseline differences between groups: mean age was 57.8 years, 55% were women, and the mean PHQ score was 14.5 (SD 3.7). Intervention patients had greater 12-month improvements in PHQ (7.3 [SD 5.6]) compared with active-control subjects (5.2 [SD 5.7], P = 0.015). Recovery of depressive symptoms (i.e., PHQ reduced by 50%) was greater among intervention patients (61% vs. 44%, P = 0.03). Compared with trial patients, nonscreened control subjects had significantly less improvement at 12 months in the PHQ score (3.2 [SD 4.9]) and lower rates of recovery (24%, P < 0.05 for both).

CONCLUSIONS In patients with type 2 diabetes who screened positive for depressive symptoms, collaborative care improved depressive symptoms, but physician notification and follow-up was also a clinically effective initial strategy compared with usual care.

Introduction

Depression and depressive symptoms are common in patients with type 2 diabetes, with rates twofold higher than in the general population (1). Despite this, less than 50% of these patients are recognized as having depressive symptoms (1). Depression itself is considered a risk factor for the development of type 2 diabetes (2) and is associated with poorer self-care behaviors (3), worse glycemic control, increased risk of complications (4), decreased quality of life (5), and substantially higher health care costs (6).

Although the majority of individuals with diabetes and depression are treated in primary care settings (7), only a minority receive adequate treatment for depression (7,8). Given its high prevalence and effect on outcomes and the availability of effective treatments, screening for depression in patients with diabetes has been recommended by some (9,10). This is, however, not without controversy (11,12); for example, the Canadian Task Force for Preventive Medicine recently recommended against screening for depression in primary care in general or in high-risk patients such as those with chronic diseases (13). Much of the debate has surrounded the limited evidence base and the value of screening alone versus screening combined with coordinated care (11–14).

A growing body of literature has demonstrated value in collaborative care models for patients with depression (15,16) and, specifically, in patients with diabetes (17). These models are also considered to be cost-effective, although estimates of efficiency may be based on only a subset of controlled studies with large clinical effects that are not representative (18). In general, the controlled trials of collaborative care for depression in primary care settings suggest a small-to-moderate effect (16,17,19). Furthermore, most of the studies have been undertaken in the U.S. (19), although recent trials in Europe of collaborative care for depression demonstrated feasibility and modest effectiveness (20,21). We therefore sought to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of a collaborative model of care for patients with type 2 diabetes and depressive symptoms in the Canadian primary care setting while also determining the value of screening for depression itself when compared with usual care delivered outside the trial setting.

Research Design and Methods

Overview

Our study design and rationale have been previously published (22,23). Our intervention was an adaptation of a nurse-led collaborative care model previously proven effective in randomized controlled trials in U.S. health maintenance organizations (24,25). We chose to evaluate this model using a pragmatic, controlled implementation trial. We used a variant of the cohort multiple randomized controlled trial design (22,26) and took advantage of sampling from the Alberta’s Caring for Diabetes (ABCD) Cohort Study (23), a large, ongoing, annual survey of patients with type 2 diabetes. Initial contact with cohort participants included the administration of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ). Those who screened positive for depressive symptoms (i.e., PHQ ≥10) were invited to participate and allocated to intervention or active control. We also identified patients from the ABCD Cohort who would have been eligible for our trial, but who were neither approached nor enrolled, to serve as independent nonscreened usual care control subjects. Ethics approval was granted from the University of Alberta Health Research Ethics Board (HREB #PRO00012663).

Setting and Population

We worked in collaboration with four primary care networks (PCNs) in nonmetropolitan Alberta. A PCN is akin to the “medical home” (27). Collectively, the four study PCNs represent 140 family physicians and 180,000 patients, with an estimated 10,000 patients with type 2 diabetes. Eligible patients were adults aged 18 years and older with type 2 diabetes and PHQ ≥10. We excluded patients with severe physical illness, serious psychiatric illness (e.g., bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or under current care by a psychiatrist), those who were pregnant or breast-feeding, and those who were participating in other clinical trials. Patient enrollment started in November 2010, with the last patient visit in January 2013.

Recruitment and Allocation

Recruitment included three steps. First, a screening survey was mailed. Second, PCN staff confirmed eligibility and scheduled a baseline visit. Third, the care manager (CM) reconfirmed eligibility and obtained written informed consent. Patients were then allocated using a controlled “on-off” time series method (22,28). During month 1, patients were allocated to intervention; those enrolled in month 2 were allocated to active control, and so on. Research personnel, analysts, and investigators were masked to allocation status at all times, although neither the CM nor patients could be blinded. This method has been used in many studies. It reliably leads to balance in measured (and unmeasured) patient characteristics and meets criteria for internal validity sufficient for inclusion in the Cochrane Collaborations’ Effective Practice and Organization of Care systematic reviews (29).

Intervention (Collaborative Care)

Our collaborative care model was an adaptation of the TEAMCare approach (24,25). The intervention involved a registered nurse CM who coordinated collaborative team management. The goal was to reduce depressive symptoms, achieve targets for cardiometabolic parameters, and improve lifestyle behaviors. The CM worked with the patient to develop a shared care plan, offered support and problem solving techniques to optimize self-management, and closely monitored treatment adherence and outcomes (24,25). The CM provided active in-person or telephone follow-up once to twice per month to reassess symptoms and assist patients in achieving goals. The CM consulted regularly with specialists (psychiatrists and endocrinologists) to review new cases and ongoing patient progress and discuss recommendations, based on locally developed and endorsed evidence-based care algorithms. The CM communicated recommendations to family physicians, who remained responsible for final treatment decisions and all prescriptions. Management of depressive symptoms involved the use of antidepressant medication and/or psychotherapy. Once patients achieved symptom amelioration (PHQ <10), a relapse prevention plan was developed while continuing to work toward cardiometabolic control and lifestyle modifications.

Members of the team in each PCN, including the CMs, specialists, physician champion, and data administrative assistant, received extensive, on-going training facilitated by the original TEAMCare investigators (24,25). Training included an initial 2-day training session, an annual booster session, and monthly teleconferences with the CMs and specialists. The CMs also received standardized training in problem-solving therapy, behavioral activation, and motivational interviewing.

Active-Control Subjects (Screening and Follow-up)

All patients were screened using the PHQ. Each patient’s family physician was notified by letter that the patient had recently screened positive for depressive symptoms. Patients allocated to active control received all subsequent follow-up from their family physician, at his or her discretion, without further additional active support from the CM. PHQ and additional measures were collected at baseline, 6, and 12 months, and the family physician was notified if any measures fell outside prespecified values.

Nonscreened Usual Care Control Subjects

Irrespective of trial participation, all patients with type 2 diabetes in the province were potentially eligible for our concurrent ABCD Cohort Study (23). ABCD cohort respondents completed a written questionnaire with self-reported measures that overlapped the measures in the TEAMCare study, including the PHQ8 (30). One item (suicide screen) from the PHQ9 is omitted in the PHQ8, and the latter was used because no follow-up was planned for the cohort participants who might positively respond to this item. Both versions are similarly scored, yield essentially identical results, and are considered equivalent (14,30). For clarity and brevity, we refer to these measures as PHQ throughout the article. We identified those participants in the ABCD Cohort with PHQ ≥10 at the baseline survey and evaluated their PHQ score from the subsequent 12-month survey during the same study period. Because the baseline PHQ scores were not calculated for these patients (i.e., only measured) nor were any family physician notification or any other clinical follow-up planned, we considered them an independent but concurrent and comparable nonscreened control group, representing the natural history of depressive symptoms outside of our trial (i.e., true “usual care”).

Measures

Clinical outcomes were assessed at baseline, 6, and 12 months. Our primary outcome was change in the PHQ score over 12 months, where 5 points is considered an important difference (14,31). We also evaluated the rates of clinically significant recovery (PHQ improved by 50% of the baseline score) and amelioration of depressive symptoms (PHQ <10) at 12 months (14,20). Clinical and laboratory measures included BMI, waist circumference, A1C, systolic blood pressure (SBP), and LDL-cholesterol (32). Patient-reported outcomes were also collected from all participants using validated surveys. Health-related quality-of-life measures included the SF-12 (33) physical and mental composite summaries, the 5-level EQ-5D (34), and the Problem Areas in Diabetes 5-item (PAID-5) (35). Satisfaction with care was measured using the brief Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC-11) (36,37).

Sample Size and Power

We estimated that a minimum total sample size of 120, with 60 in each arm, would provide 80% power to detect mean between-group differences of 5 points in the PHQ (14,31), assuming a repeated-measures correlation of 0.6, and two-tailed α of 0.05. This sample size provided more than 80% power to detect any between-group absolute differences in proportions of 15% or more (e.g., 45% of usual care patients achieve recovery vs. 60% of intervention patients). Anticipating a 40% attrition rate, we planned to recruit 160 patients.

Data Analysis

Using random-effects linear regression models, we compared the pooled estimates of improvements in each outcome from baseline to 6 months and 12 months, respectively, between the intervention and active-control groups. We used logistic regression to compare the proportion of subjects who achieved recovery (PHQ improved by 50%) and amelioration (i.e., PHQ <10) of depressive symptoms (14) at 12 months. We used an intention-to-treat framework and last-observation-carried-forward imputation of missing values. Because of concerns with the last-observation-carried-forward approach to missing data, we repeated all comparisons using individual growth-curve models, obtaining consistent results (results not shown). We also repeated all analyses adjusting for age, sex, BMI, and PCN site, again obtaining results similar to the main analysis (results not shown). We also directly compared 12-month changes and improvements in PHQ among trial patients with the independent nonscreened usual care control patients from the ABCD cohort with linear and logistic regressions, respectively, adjusting for baseline age difference. Finally, we stratified these three-group comparisons by baseline PHQ score >14. For all analyses, we used SAS 9.2 software (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC), considered a P value <0.05 to be statistically significant, and did not adjust for multiple comparisons.

Results

We mailed screening packages to 7,846 patients, with a response rate of 35% (n = 2,718), of whom 71% (n = 1,924) were initially eligible (Supplementary Data). Of these, 476 patients (25%) had PHQ ≥10. From this group, 157 patients were enrolled in the trial, with 95 allocated to intervention and 62 to active control. Forty-three patients (27%) did not complete the trial, with no significant difference between trial groups (29% vs. 24%; P = 0.47) (Supplementary Data). Three participants did not complete the survey at any time point, and thus, the analysis of secondary outcomes from the survey data was based on a sample of 154.

Baseline Characteristics

There were no important baseline differences between intervention and active-control patients (Table 1). The mean age overall was 57.8 (SD 9.8) years, 55% were women, and 75% had a BMI >30 kg/m2. The mean PHQ score at baseline was 14.5 (SD 3.7), and just under one-half of patients were being treated with psychoactive medications. Patients had reasonably good cardiometabolic control, with mean A1C of 7.6% (SD 1.8%) (60 [SD 19.7] mmol/mol), SBP of 125.2 (SD 15.9) mmHg, and LDL-cholesterol of 2.2 (SD 0.8) mmol/L.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Baseline characteristics for trial participants

Depressive Symptoms

Intervention patients had greater improvements in PHQ (7.3 [SD 5.6]) over 12 months compared with active-control subjects (5.2 [SD 5.7]), for a between-group difference of difference of 2.0 (95% CI 0.4, 3.7; P = 0.015) (Table 2 and Fig. 1). Clinically important recovery from depressive symptoms occurred in 61% of intervention patients compared with 44% of active-control subjects (P = 0.03).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2

Outcomes at 6 and 12 months for intervention and active-control patients

Figure 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1

Change in the PHQ score over 12 months for collaborative care intervention vs. active-control trial patients and nonscreened usual care control subjects.

Patients in the nonscreened usual-care control cohort were similar to trial patients in sex (54% female) and baseline PHQ scores (14.2), but were older than trial patients (Table 1). At 12 months, the nonscreened usual care control subjects had a PHQ improvement of 3.2 (SD 4.9) (Table 3), which was significantly less than improvements observed among the intervention (P < 0.001) or active-control (P = 0.029) patients, after adjusting for age. At 12 months, only 24% of the nonscreened usual care control subjects had recovered, and 39% achieved symptom amelioration (P < 0.05 for both) (Table 3). The improvements appeared to be greatest in those with more severe depressive symptoms at baseline (Supplementary Data).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3

Change in depressive symptoms over 12 months for trial and nonscreened usual care control patients

Other Outcomes

No significant differences were observed in changes in A1C, SBP, or LDL-cholesterol between intervention and active-control groups (Table 2). All patients had substantially impaired health-related quality of life at baseline, but improvements were observed in all patients for all outcomes, with no differences between groups (Table 2). PAID-5 scores suggested intervention patients had a significantly greater reduction in diabetes-specific distress than active-control subjects (P = 0.03) (Table 2). For the PACIC-11 scores, there was a nonsignificant (P = 0.25) improvement of 18.1 (SD 30.0) points in the intervention group compared with 12.6 (SD 26.2) points for active-control subjects (Table 2).

Conclusions

As has been previously established, the collaborative care intervention implemented in our local setting led to reductions in depressive symptoms over and above care delivered by family physicians who were notified that their patients screened positive for depressive symptoms. In fact, most of the patients in our trial, who had moderately severe depressive symptoms at baseline, had large and clinically important improvements in their symptoms over 12 months. However, outside the trial, concurrent nonscreened patients with diabetes (whose family physicians were not notified of PHQ results) had far less improvement in depressive symptoms over 12 months than the intervention or active-control patients. Thus, our results suggest collaborative care models are effective outside of randomized trials and in different primary care settings and that screening for depressive symptoms and notification to the family physician may be an initial, and effective, strategy to achieve worthwhile improvements in the care of those with depressive symptoms and type 2 diabetes compared with usual care.

Although we evaluated this collaborative care model with a pragmatic implementation trial, we recognized some potential limitations. We used a controlled but nonrandom allocation of patients, which has greater potential for unbalanced study groups, particularly because an unblinded CM undertook enrollment and assessment. This might be considered an important threat to internal validity. However, we demonstrated that nonrandomized allocation led to study groups that, although unbalanced in number, had comparable baseline characteristics, and ultimately, we observed an effect size similar to that seen in randomized trials. We considered the available evidence for collaborative care models quite robust (15,17), including the randomized trials testing the efficacy of the specific TEAMCare model we implemented (24,25). Therefore, we did not see the need to conduct another randomized trial and were reluctant to allocate to a true unscreened (i.e., family physicians masked to PHQ status at baseline) control group (22).

Although relatively small, our minimal sample size calculation (N = 120) suggested adequate power to detect clinically important changes in the PHQ. In fact, the magnitude of the difference between our intervention and active-control groups (2.0 points, or an effect size of 0.56) is similar to previous trials of collaborative care (15,17,25). Although this difference is well below the previously suggested criterion (and our a priori standard) of 5 points (14,31), some controlled studies suggest that even small to moderate improvements in depressive symptoms might be associated with reduced health care utilization and costs (19,38,39). We also recognize that attrition was somewhat higher than in previous studies, although it was less than we originally anticipated. In part this may be expected because we undertook this as an implementation study, with less control than in previous, and more rigorous, efficacy trials. Regardless, our attrition was nondifferential (∼27% across both groups). Furthermore, when those who did or did not complete the full 12-month follow-up visits were compared, there was no difference in baseline A1C (P = 0.24), LDL-cholesterol (P = 0.34), or SBP (P = 0.36). There was a statistically significant difference in the baseline PHQ score, but it was of marginal clinical importance (14.1 for completers and 15.4 for noncompleters; P = 0.04). We therefore believe there was little bias due to attrition.

A major strength of our study was our consideration of the true natural history of depressive symptoms for patients who were not actively screened. In this context, the intervention and active-control patients in our trial both had substantially better improvements in PHQ scores than those potentially eligible but outside the trial. Indeed, the magnitude of the improvements in depressive symptoms seen in our active-control group (screening and notification with follow-up) compared with no screening was substantial, with an effect size of 0.63, similar to that seen in previous randomized trials (16,17,25) and in our own comparative effectiveness trial. This substantial effect, obtained with fewer and more sustainable resources (i.e., our active-control group), may be considered an important first step in improving the quality of care for patients with comorbid diabetes and depression. If, however, additional resources are available to implement and sustain more costly and complex collaborative care models, even greater improvements could be achieved. Moreover, the greatest improvements were observed in those with more severe depressive symptoms at baseline. These may be strategies to consider in the translation of our findings for the implementation of these interventions in primary care.

As noted above, however, recommendations for screening for depression in primary care are controversial (11,12). At the time we initiated our study, the Canadian Task Force for Preventive Care recommended screening for depression (9), similar to recommendations in the U.S. (10). Shortly after the completion of our study, however, the recommendations of the Canadian Task Force changed (13), making our approach discordant with the guidelines. The change in Canadian Task Force recommendations was not based on new evidence but rather on reinterpretation of the available evidence, where no randomized trials of depression screening exist (11,13). Although the guidelines, and controversy, are based on screening for depression, a more nuanced and clinically informed alternate view may be that there is value in a proactive strategy of case-finding patients with unresolved depressive symptoms (40). Although not randomized, our results nonetheless suggest that there are benefits to actively identifying patients with type 2 diabetes and depressive symptoms and notifying their physicians of their PHQ results. Indeed, given that half our trial population was already taking a psychoactive medication of some type, the issue may be more of inadequate or undertreatment of depression rather than just identifying new cases.

The change in PAID-5 score, a measure of diabetes distress, in the intervention compared with active-control patients was an interesting observation. It is likely that there is some degree of overlap between distress and depressive symptoms, but it is clearly not complete overlap. We recruited patients on the basis of depressive symptoms, not diabetes distress or poor diabetes control, and in fact, most patients already had good glycemic control, suggesting less diabetes distress in this sample of patients. We observed only a weak to moderate correlation between PAID and PHQ scores (0.17 at baseline, 0.46 at 12 months) and found that 30% of patients with moderate to severe depressive symptoms (PHQ >10) had no diabetes distress (PAID = 0) at baseline. Regardless, our intervention focused initially on improving quality of care for depressive symptoms, included problem solving and improving antidepressant therapy, and resulted in a significant improvement in depressive symptoms. Once these improvements were seen in patients, the CM then shifted focus to cardiometabolic care and treatments. Thus, it is likely the observed improvements in diabetes distress may have been secondary to reduced depressive symptoms. Nonetheless, it would be worthwhile to further explore the temporal relationship and patterns of improvements in symptoms of depression and diabetes distress.

In conclusion, we observed one in four patients with type 2 diabetes in the primary care setting had moderate to severe depressive symptoms. Substantial improvements in depressive symptoms occurred in most of the patients enrolled in our trial, with greater improvements achieved through collaborative care compared with our active-control group, which based on our design and results is perhaps better termed “enhanced usual care.” In more resource-constrained settings, our findings also suggest that active screening for depressive symptoms with family physician notification and follow-up may be an effective initial strategy to achieve worthwhile improvements in these high-risk patients compared with the status quo of usual primary care.

Article Information

Funding. J.A.J. is a Senior Scholar with Alberta Innovates-Health Solutions (AIHS) and a Centennial Professor at the University of Alberta. S.R.M. is a Health Scholar funded by AIHS and holds the Endowed Chair in Patient Health Management funded by the Faculties of Medicine and Dentistry and Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences of the University of Alberta. This work was supported in part by grant from Alberta Health and a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Team Grant to the Alliance for Canadian Health Outcomes Research in Diabetes (reference No. OTG-88588), sponsored by the CIHR Institute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes.

Duality of Interest. P.C. has received research and travel grants from Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Lundbeck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Eli Lilly as a researcher and speaker. W.K. has received support to serve on advisory boards from Eli Lilly and has received honorariums for lectures from Pfizer, Forest, and Eli Lilly. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Author Contributions. J.A.J. led the conception and design of the study. F.A.S., L.W., S.R., A.S., and W.Q. collected and/or analyzed data and reviewed and edited the manuscript. C.L.C., P.C., P.F., J.J., P.L., and A.O. provided clinical care as specialists and reviewed and edited the manuscript. W.K. served as a consultant in the implementation phase of this study and reviewed and edited the manuscript. S.R.M. contributed to conception and design of the study and data analysis and interpretation, and reviewed and edited the manuscript. J.A.J. is the guarantor of this work and, as such, had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Footnotes

  • This article contains Supplementary Data online at http://care.diabetesjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.2337/dc14-1308/-/DC1.

  • Clinical trial reg. no. NCT01328639, clinicaltrials.gov.

  • Received May 22, 2014.
  • Accepted September 14, 2014.
  • © 2014 by the American Diabetes Association. Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Holt RIG,
    2. de Groot M,
    3. Lucki I,
    4. Hunter CM,
    5. Sartorius N,
    6. Golden SH
    . NIDDK international conference report on diabetes and depression: current understanding and future directions. Diabetes Care 2014;37:2067–2077pmid:25061135
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Knol MJ,
    2. Twisk JWR,
    3. Beekman ATF,
    4. Heine RJ,
    5. Snoek FJ,
    6. Pouwer F
    . Depression as a risk factor for the onset of type 2 diabetes mellitus. A meta-analysis. Diabetologia 2006;49:837–845pmid:16520921
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    1. Katon WJ,
    2. Russo JE,
    3. Heckbert SR,
    4. et al
    . The relationship between changes in depression symptoms and changes in health risk behaviors in patients with diabetes. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2010;25:466–475pmid:19711303
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. ↵
    1. de Groot M,
    2. Anderson R,
    3. Freedland KE,
    4. Clouse RE,
    5. Lustman PJ
    . Association of depression and diabetes complications: a meta-analysis. Psychosom Med 2001;63:619–630pmid:11485116
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Ali S,
    2. Stone M,
    3. Skinner TC,
    4. Robertson N,
    5. Davies M,
    6. Khunti K
    . The association between depression and health-related quality of life in people with type 2 diabetes: a systematic literature review. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2010;26:75–89pmid:20186998
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Simon GE,
    2. Katon WJ,
    3. Lin EHB,
    4. et al
    . Diabetes complications and depression as predictors of health service costs. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2005;27:344–351pmid:16168795
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. ↵
    1. Katon WJ,
    2. Simon G,
    3. Russo J,
    4. et al
    . Quality of depression care in a population-based sample of patients with diabetes and major depression. Med Care 2004;42:1222–1229pmid:15550802
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. ↵
    1. Remick RA
    . Diagnosis and management of depression in primary care: a clinical update and review. CMAJ 2002;167:1253–1260pmid:12451082
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. MacMillan HL,
    2. Patterson CJS,
    3. Wathen CN,
    4. et al.,
    5. Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care
    . Screening for depression in primary care: recommendation statement from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. CMAJ 2005;172:33–35pmid:15632399
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
    . Screening for depression in adults: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:784–792pmid:19949144
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. ↵
    1. Thombs BD,
    2. Coyne JC,
    3. Cuijpers P,
    4. et al
    . Rethinking recommendations for screening for depression in primary care. CMAJ 2012;184:413–418pmid:21930744
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Bland RC,
    2. Streiner DL
    . Why screening for depression in primary care is impractical. CMAJ 2013;185:753–754pmid:23670151
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Joffres M,
    2. Jaramillo A,
    3. Dickinson J,
    4. et al.,
    5. Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care
    . Recommendations on screening for depression in adults. CMAJ 2013;185:775–782pmid:23670157
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Kroenke K
    . Enhancing the clinical utility of depression screening. CMAJ 2012;184:281–282pmid:22231681
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. Gilbody S,
    2. Bower P,
    3. Fletcher J,
    4. Richards D,
    5. Sutton AJ
    . Collaborative care for depression: a cumulative meta-analysis and review of longer-term outcomes. Arch Intern Med 2006;166:2314–2321pmid:17130383
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    1. Thota AB,
    2. Sipe TA,
    3. Byard GJ,
    4. et al.,
    5. Community Preventive Services Task Force
    . Collaborative care to improve the management of depressive disorders: a community guide systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Prev Med 2012;42:525–538pmid:22516495
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. van der Feltz-Cornelis CM,
    2. Nuyen J,
    3. Stoop C,
    4. et al
    . Effect of interventions for major depressive disorder and significant depressive symptoms in patients with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2010;32:380–395pmid:20633742
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. ↵
    1. Gilbody S,
    2. Bower P,
    3. Sutton AJ
    . Randomized trials with concurrent economic evaluations reported unrepresentatively large clinical effect sizes. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60:781–786pmid:17606173
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Jacob V,
    2. Chattopadhyay SK,
    3. Sipe TA,
    4. Thota AB,
    5. Byard GJ,
    6. Chapman DP,
    7. Community Preventive Services Task Force
    . Economics of collaborative care for management of depressive disorders: a community guide systematic review. Am J Prev Med 2012;42:539–549pmid:22516496
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Richards DA,
    2. Hill JJ,
    3. Gask L,
    4. et al
    . Clinical effectiveness of collaborative care for depression in UK primary care (CADET): cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2013;347:f4913pmid:23959152
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Gensichen J,
    2. Petersen JJ,
    3. Von Korff M,
    4. et al
    . Cost-effectiveness of depression case management in small practices. Br J Psychiatry 2013;202:441–446pmid:23580379
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Johnson JA,
    2. Al Sayah F,
    3. Wozniak L,
    4. et al
    . Controlled trial of a collaborative primary care team model for patients with diabetes and depression: rationale and design for a comprehensive evaluation. BMC Health Serv Res 2012;12:258pmid:22897901
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Wozniak L,
    2. Rees S,
    3. Soprovich A,
    4. et al
    . Applying the RE-AIM framework to the Alberta’s Caring for Diabetes Project: a protocol for a comprehensive evaluation of primary care quality improvement interventions. BMJ Open 2012;2:e002099pmid:23103609
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. Katon WJ,
    2. Von Korff M,
    3. Lin EH,
    4. et al
    . The Pathways Study: a randomized trial of collaborative care in patients with diabetes and depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2004;61:1042–1049pmid:15466678
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. ↵
    1. Katon WJ,
    2. Lin EH,
    3. Von Korff M,
    4. et al
    . Collaborative care for patients with depression and chronic illnesses. N Engl J Med 2010;363:2611–2620pmid:21190455
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. ↵
    1. Relton C,
    2. Torgerson D,
    3. O’Cathain A,
    4. Nicholl J
    . Rethinking pragmatic randomised controlled trials: introducing the “cohort multiple randomised controlled trial” design. BMJ 2010;340:c1066pmid:20304934
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Rittenhouse DR,
    2. Shortell SM
    . The patient-centered medical home: will it stand the test of health reform? JAMA 2009;301:2038–2040pmid:19454643
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  28. ↵
    1. Majumdar SR,
    2. Rowe BH,
    3. Folk D,
    4. et al
    . A controlled trial to increase detection and treatment of osteoporosis in older patients with a wrist fracture. Ann Intern Med 2004;141:366–373pmid:15353428
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  29. ↵
    Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. EPOC Author Resources [Internet]. Available from http://epoc.cochrane.org/epoc-author-resources. Accessed 2 February 2014.
  30. ↵
    1. Kroenke K,
    2. Strine TW,
    3. Spitzer RL,
    4. Williams JBW,
    5. Berry JT,
    6. Mokdad AH
    . The PHQ-8 as a measure of current depression in the general population. J Affect Disord 2009;114:163–173pmid:18752852
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  31. ↵
    1. Manea L,
    2. Gilbody S,
    3. McMillan D
    . Optimal cut-off score for diagnosing depression with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9): a meta-analysis. CMAJ 2012;184:E191–E196pmid:22184363
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    1. Majumdar SR,
    2. Johnson JA,
    3. Bowker S,
    4. et al
    . A Canadian consensus for the standardized evaluation of quality improvement interventions in type 2 diabetes. Can J Diabetes 2005;29:220–229
    OpenUrl
  33. ↵
    1. Johnson JA,
    2. Maddigan SL
    . Performance of the RAND-12 and SF-12 summary scores in type 2 diabetes. Qual Life Res 2004;13:449–456pmid:15085917
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. ↵
    1. van Hout B,
    2. Janssen MF,
    3. Feng YS,
    4. et al
    . Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health 2012;15:708–715pmid:22867780
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  35. ↵
    1. McGuire BE,
    2. Morrison TG,
    3. Hermanns N,
    4. et al
    . Short-form measures of diabetes-related emotional distress: the Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale (PAID)-5 and PAID-1. Diabetologia 2010;53:66–69pmid:19841892
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  36. ↵
    1. Glasgow RE,
    2. Whitesides H,
    3. Nelson CC,
    4. King DK
    . Use of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) with diabetic patients: relationship to patient characteristics, receipt of care, and self-management. Diabetes Care 2005;28:2655–2661pmid:16249535
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    1. Gugiu PC,
    2. Coryn C,
    3. Clark R,
    4. Kuehn A
    . Development and evaluation of the short version of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care instrument. Chronic Illn 2009;5:268–276pmid:19933249
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. ↵
    1. Katon W,
    2. Unützer J,
    3. Fan M-Y,
    4. et al
    . Cost-effectiveness and net benefit of enhanced treatment of depression for older adults with diabetes and depression. Diabetes Care 2006;29:265–270pmid:16443871
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. ↵
    1. Katon W,
    2. Russo J,
    3. Lin EHB,
    4. et al
    . Cost-effectiveness of a multicondition collaborative care intervention: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2012;69:506–514pmid:22566583
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  40. ↵
    1. Ducat L,
    2. Philipson LH,
    3. Anderson BJ
    . The mental health comorbidities of diabetes. JAMA 2014;312:691–692pmid:25010529
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Diabetes Care: 37 (12)

In this Issue

December 2014, 37(12)
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author
  • Masthead (PDF)
Sign up to receive current issue alerts
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Diabetes Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Collaborative Care Versus Screening and Follow-up for Patients With Diabetes and Depressive Symptoms: Results of a Primary Care–Based Comparative Effectiveness Trial
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Diabetes Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Diabetes Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Collaborative Care Versus Screening and Follow-up for Patients With Diabetes and Depressive Symptoms: Results of a Primary Care–Based Comparative Effectiveness Trial
Jeffrey A. Johnson, Fatima Al Sayah, Lisa Wozniak, Sandra Rees, Allison Soprovich, Weiyu Qiu, Constance L. Chik, Pierre Chue, Peter Florence, Jennifer Jacquier, Pauline Lysak, Andrea Opgenorth, Wayne Katon, Sumit R. Majumdar
Diabetes Care Dec 2014, 37 (12) 3220-3226; DOI: 10.2337/dc14-1308

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Add to Selected Citations
Share

Collaborative Care Versus Screening and Follow-up for Patients With Diabetes and Depressive Symptoms: Results of a Primary Care–Based Comparative Effectiveness Trial
Jeffrey A. Johnson, Fatima Al Sayah, Lisa Wozniak, Sandra Rees, Allison Soprovich, Weiyu Qiu, Constance L. Chik, Pierre Chue, Peter Florence, Jennifer Jacquier, Pauline Lysak, Andrea Opgenorth, Wayne Katon, Sumit R. Majumdar
Diabetes Care Dec 2014, 37 (12) 3220-3226; DOI: 10.2337/dc14-1308
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Research Design and Methods
    • Results
    • Conclusions
    • Article Information
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Suppl Material
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Comparisons of Polyexposure, Polygenic, and Clinical Risk Scores in Risk Prediction of Type 2 Diabetes
  • Quantifying Variation in Treatment Utilization for Type 2 Diabetes Across Five Major University of California Health Systems
  • Trends in Total and Out-of-pocket Payments for Noninsulin Glucose-Lowering Drugs Among U.S. Adults With Large-Employer Private Health Insurance From 2005 to 2018
Show more Epidemiology/Health Services Research

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Standards of Care Guidelines
  • Online Ahead of Print
  • Archives
  • Submit
  • Subscribe
  • Email Alerts
  • RSS Feeds

More Information

  • About the Journal
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Journal Policies
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Advertising
  • Privacy Policy: ADA Journals
  • Copyright Notice/Public Access Policy
  • Contact Us

Other ADA Resources

  • Diabetes
  • Clinical Diabetes
  • Diabetes Spectrum
  • Scientific Sessions Abstracts
  • Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes
  • BMJ Open - Diabetes Research & Care
  • Professional Books
  • Diabetes Forecast

 

  • DiabetesJournals.org
  • Diabetes Core Update
  • ADA's DiabetesPro
  • ADA Member Directory
  • Diabetes.org

© 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care Print ISSN: 0149-5992, Online ISSN: 1935-5548.