首页> 外文期刊>Journal of general internal medicine >Community-partnered cluster-randomized comparative effectiveness trial of community engagement and planning or resources for services to address depression disparities
【24h】

Community-partnered cluster-randomized comparative effectiveness trial of community engagement and planning or resources for services to address depression disparities

机译:社区合作的集群随机性比较有效性审判社区参与和规划或资源,以解决抑郁症差异

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: Depression contributes to disability and there are ethnic/racial disparities in access and outcomes of care. Quality improvement (QI) programs for depression in primary care improve outcomes relative to usual care, but health, social and other community-based service sectors also support clients in under-resourced communities. Little is known about effects on client outcomes of strategies to implement depression QI across diverse sectors. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of Community Engagement and Planning (CEP) and Resources for Services (RS) to implement depression QI on clients' mental health-related quality of life (HRQL) and services use. DESIGN: Matched programs from health, social and other service sectors were randomized to community engagement and planning (promoting inter-agency collaboration) or resources for services (individual program technical assistance plus outreach) to implement depression QI toolkits in Hollywood-Metro and South Los Angeles. PARTICIPANTS: From 93 randomized programs, 4,440 clients were screened and of 1,322 depressed by the 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8) and providing contact information, 1,246 enrolled and 1,018 in 90 programs completed baseline or 6-month follow-up. MEASURES: Self-reported mental HRQL and probable depression (primary), physical activity, employment, homelessness risk factors (secondary) and services use. RESULTS: CEP was more effective than RS at improving mental HRQL, increasing physical activity and reducing homelessness risk factors, rate of behavioral health hospitalization and medication visits among specialty care users (i.e. psychiatrists, mental health providers) while increasing depression visits among users of primary care/public health for depression and users of faith-based and park programs (each p < 0.05). Employment, use of antidepressants, and total contacts were not significantly affected (each p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Community engagement to build a collaborative approach to implementing depression QI across diverse programs was more effective than resources for services for individual programs in improving mental HRQL, physical activity and homelessness risk factors, and shifted utilization away from hospitalizations and specialty medication visits toward primary care and other sectors, offering an expanded health-home model to address multiple disparities for depressed safety-net clients.
机译:背景:抑郁症有助于残疾,并且在护理的访问和结果方面存在种族/种族差异。质量改进(QI)初级保健抑郁症的方案改善了相对于通常护理的结果,但健康,社会和其他基于社区的服务部门也支持资源不足社区的客户。对在不同部门实施抑郁症Qi的策略的影响几乎没有知之甚少。目的:比较社区参与和规划(CEP)和服务资源的效力(卢比),为客户的心理健康有关的生活质量(HRQL)和服务使用来实现萧条齐。设计:来自卫生,社会和其他服务部门的匹配计划被随机地进行了社区参与和规划(促进机构间协作)或服务资源(个人方案技术援助加别人),以在好莱坞 - 地铁和南洛斯落实抑郁齐齐工具包安吉利斯。参与者:从93个随机计划,8项患者健康问卷(PHQ-8)筛选了4,440名客户,并提供1,322次抑郁,并提供联系信息,注册1,246名,90个计划完成基线或6个月的后续行动。措施:自我报告的心理HRQL和可能的抑郁症(小学),身体活动,就业,无家可归风险因素(二级)和服务使用。结果:CEP比改善心理HRQL的卢比更有效,增加身体活动和减少无家可归风险因素,行为健康住院率和专业护理用户(即精神病学家,心理健康提供者)的药物访问,同时增加初级用户的抑郁症关心/公共卫生抑郁和基于信仰和公园计划的用户(每P <0.05)。就业,使用抗抑郁药和总接触没有显着影响(每次P> 0.05)。结论:社区参与在各种计划中建立一个协作方法,以各种计划实施萧条齐的资源比改善心理HRQL,身体活动和无家可归风险因素的各个方案的资源更有效,以及将利用率从住院和专业药物探讨转向原发性护理和其他部门,提供扩展的健康家庭模型,以解决抑郁的安全网客户的多种差异。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Journal of general internal medicine》 |2013年第10期|共11页
  • 作者单位

    RAND Corporation Santa Monica CA United States David Geffen School of Medicine Departments of;

    Healthy African American Families II Los Angeles CA United States Charles R. Drew University of;

    RAND Corporation Santa Monica CA United States David Geffen School of Medicine Departments of;

    QueensCare Health and Faith Partnership Los Angeles CA United States;

    David Geffen School of Medicine Departments of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences UCLA Los;

    Behavioral Health Services Gardena CA United States;

    RAND Corporation Santa Monica CA United States;

    RAND Corporation Santa Monica CA United States;

    Department of Medicine David Geffen School of Medicine UCLA Division of General Internal Medicine;

    David Geffen School of Medicine Departments of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences UCLA Los;

    David Geffen School of Medicine Departments of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences UCLA Los;

    David Geffen School of Medicine Departments of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences UCLA Los;

    David Geffen School of Medicine Departments of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences UCLA Los;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 内科学;
  • 关键词

    CBPR; community partnered participatory research; community-based participatory research; CPPR; depression;

    机译:CBPR;社区合作的参与式研究;基于社区的参与性研究;CPPR;抑郁症;

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号