Shared Decision Making for Antidepressants in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Trial | Clinical Decision Support | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 18.204.227.34. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Kessler  RC, Chiu  WT, Demler  O, Merikangas  KR, Walters  EE.  Prevalence, severity, and comorbidity of 12-month DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication.  Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005;62(6):617-627.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Moussavi  S, Chatterji  S, Verdes  E, Tandon  A, Patel  V, Ustun  B.  Depression, chronic diseases, and decrements in health: results from the World Health Surveys.  Lancet. 2007;370(9590):851-858.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Burcusa  SL, Iacono  WG.  Risk for recurrence in depression.  Clin Psychol Rev. 2007;27(8):959-985.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Merikangas  KR, Ames  M, Cui  L,  et al.  The impact of comorbidity of mental and physical conditions on role disability in the US adult household population.  Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007;64(10):1180-1188.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Simon  GE.  Long-term prognosis of depression in primary care.  Bull World Health Organ. 2000;78(4):439-445.PubMedGoogle Scholar
6.
American Psychiatric Association.  Practice guideline for the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder (revision).  Am J Psychiatry. 2000;157(4)(suppl):1-45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
7.
Coulehan  JL, Schulberg  HC, Block  MR, Madonia  MJ, Rodriguez  E.  Treating depressed primary care patients improves their physical, mental, and social functioning.  Arch Intern Med. 1997;157(10):1113-1120.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Katzelnick  D, Simon  G, Pearson  S, Manning  W, Kobak  K.  Depression management programs.  Arch Fam Med. 2000;9(8):689-70.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Akincigil  A, Bowblis  JR, Levin  C, Walkup  JT, Jan  S, Crystal  S.  Adherence to antidepressant treatment among privately insured patients diagnosed with depression.  Med Care. 2007;45(4):363-369.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Sheehan  DV, Keene  MS, Eaddy  M, Krulewicz  S, Kraus  JE, Carpenter  DJ.  Differences in medication adherence and healthcare resource utilization patterns: older versus newer antidepressant agents in patients with depression and/or anxiety disorders.  CNS Drugs. 2008;22(11):963-973.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Demyttenaere  K, Enzlin  P, Dewé  W,  et al.  Compliance with antidepressants in a primary care setting, 1: Beyond lack of efficacy and adverse events.  J Clin Psychiatry. 2001;62(suppl 22):30-33.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Wierzbicki  M, Pekarik  G.  A meta-analysis of psychotherapy dropout.  Prof Psychol Res Pr. 1993;24(2):190-195.Google ScholarCrossref
13.
van Grieken  RA, Beune  EJ, Kirkenier  AC, Koeter  MW, van Zwieten  MC, Schene  AH.  Patients׳ perspectives on how treatment can impede their recovery from depression.  J Affect Disord. 2014;167:153-159.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Gartlehner  G, Hansen  R, Morgan  L,  et al.  Second-Generation Antidepressants in the Pharmacologic Treatment of Adult Depression: An Update of the 2007 Comparative Effectiveness Review.2011. http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/?productid=862&pageaction=displayproduct.
15.
Cipriani  A, Furukawa  TA, Salanti  G,  et al.  Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 12 new-generation antidepressants: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis.  Lancet. 2009;373(9665):746-758.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Gaissmaier  W, Anderson  BL, Schulkin  J.  How do physicians provide statistical information about antidepressants to hypothetical patients?  Med Decis Making. 2014;34(2):206-215.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Davies  NM, Gunnell  D, Thomas  KH, Metcalfe  C, Windmeijer  F, Martin  RM.  Physicians’ prescribing preferences were a potential instrument for patients’ actual prescriptions of antidepressants.  J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(12):1386-1396.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Sox  HC.  Comparative effectiveness research: a progress report.  Ann Intern Med. 2010;153(7):469-472.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Timbie  JW, Fox  DS, Van Busum  K, Schneider  EC.  Five reasons that many comparative effectiveness studies fail to change patient care and clinical practice.  Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31(10):2168-2175.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Morrato  EH, Concannon  TW, Meissner  P, Shah  ND, Turner  BJ.  Dissemination and implementation of comparative effectiveness evidence: key informant interviews with Clinical and Translational Science Award institutions.  J Comp Eff Res. 2013;2(2):185-194.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Stiggelbout  AM, Van der Weijden  T, De Wit  MP,  et al.  Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare.  BMJ. 2012;344:e256.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Shah  ND, Mullan  RJ, Breslin  M, Yawn  BP, Ting  HH, Montori  VM.  Translating comparative effectiveness into practice: the case of diabetes medications.  Med Care. 2010;48(6)(suppl):S153-S158.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Joosten  EA, DeFuentes-Merillas  L, de Weert  GH, Sensky  T, van der Staak  CP, de Jong  CA.  Systematic review of the effects of shared decision-making on patient satisfaction, treatment adherence and health status.  Psychother Psychosom. 2008;77(4):219-226.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Stacey  D, Légaré  F, Col  NF,  et al.  Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;1:CD001431.PubMedGoogle Scholar
25.
Agoritsas  T, Heen  AF, Brandt  L,  et al.  Decision aids that really promote shared decision making: the pace quickens.  BMJ. 2015;350:g7624.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
LeBlanc  A, Bodde  AE, Branda  ME,  et al.  Translating comparative effectiveness of depression medications into practice by comparing the depression medication choice decision aid to usual care: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.  Trials. 2013;14:127.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Kroenke  K, Spitzer  RL, Williams  JB.  The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure.  J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(9):606-613.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
 A new direction in depression treatment in Minnesota: DIAMOND program, Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement, Bloomington, Minnesota.  Psychiatr Serv. 2010;61(10):1042-1044.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Glasgow  RE, McKay  HG, Piette  JD, Reynolds  KD.  The RE-AIM framework for evaluating interventions: what can it tell us about approaches to chronic illness management?  Patient Educ Couns. 2001;44(2):119-127.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
O’Connor  AM.  Validation of a decisional conflict scale.  Med Decis Making. 1995;15(1):25-30.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
O’Connor  A.  Knowledge [user manual].2000. http://decisionaid.ohri.ca/docs/develop/User_Manuals/UM_Knowledge.pdf.
32.
Branda  ME, LeBlanc  A, Shah  ND,  et al.  Shared decision making for patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized trial in primary care.  BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:301.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Mullan  RJ, Montori  VM, Shah  ND,  et al.  The diabetes mellitus medication choice decision aid: a randomized trial.  Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(17):1560-1568.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Hess  LM, Raebel  MA, Conner  DA, Malone  DC.  Measurement of adherence in pharmacy administrative databases: a proposal for standard definitions and preferred measures.  Ann Pharmacother. 2006;40(7-8):1280-1288.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
LeBlanc  A, Kenny  DA, O’Connor  AM, Légaré  F.  Decisional conflict in patients and their physicians: a dyadic approach to shared decision making.  Med Decis Making. 2009;29(1):61-68.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Elwyn  G, Hutchings  H, Edwards  A,  et al.  The OPTION scale: measuring the extent that clinicians involve patients in decision-making tasks.  Health Expect. 2005;8(1):34-42.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Wyatt  KD, Branda  ME, Anderson  RT,  et al.  Peering into the black box: a meta-analysis of how clinicians use decision aids during clinical encounters.  Implement Sci. 2014;9:26.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Donner  A, Klar  NS.  Design and Analysis of Cluster Randomisation Trials in Health Research. London, England: Hodder Arnold; 2000.
39.
Weymiller  AJ, Montori  VM, Jones  LA,  et al.  Helping patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus make treatment decisions: statin choice randomized trial.  Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(10):1076-1082.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Snijders  T, Bosker  Rj.  Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling. London, England: Sage; 2004.
41.
Shrout  PE, Fleiss  JL.  Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability.  Psychol Bull. 1979;86(2):420-428.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Montori  VM, Shah  ND, Pencille  LJ,  et al.  Use of a decision aid to improve treatment decisions in osteoporosis: the osteoporosis choice randomized trial.  Am J Med. 2011;124(6):549-556.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Duncan  E, Best  C, Hagen  S.  Shared decision making interventions for people with mental health conditions.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(1):CD007297.PubMedGoogle Scholar
44.
Couët  N, Desroches  S, Robitaille  H,  et al.  Assessments of the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in decision making: a systematic review of studies using the OPTION instrument.  Health Expect. 2015;18(4):542-561.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
McKinney  M.  ‘Time is of the essence’. PCORI moves to implement comparative effectiveness research, funding.  Mod Healthc. 2012;42(5):12-13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
46.
Katz  SJ, Hawley  S.  The value of sharing treatment decision making with patients: expecting too much?  JAMA. 2013;310(15):1559-1560.PubMedGoogle Scholar
47.
Oshima Lee  E, Emanuel  EJ.  Shared decision making to improve care and reduce costs.  N Engl J Med. 2013;368(1):6-8.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
Gilbody  SM, Whitty  PM, Grimshaw  JM, Thomas  RE.  Improving the detection and management of depression in primary care.  Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12(2):149-155.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
49.
Härter  M, Bermejo  I, Ollenschläger  G,  et al.  Improving quality of care for depression: the German Action Programme for the implementation of evidence-based guidelines.  Int J Qual Health Care. 2006;18(2):113-119.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
Institute of Medicine.  Crossing the Quality Chasm. A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.
51.
Nieuwlaat  R, Wilczynski  N, Navarro  T,  et al.  Interventions for enhancing medication adherence.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;11:CD000011.PubMedGoogle Scholar
52.
Coylewright  M, Branda  M, Inselman  JW,  et al.  Impact of sociodemographic patient characteristics on the efficacy of decision AIDS: a patient-level meta-analysis of 7 randomized trials.  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014;7(3):360-367.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    1 Comment for this article
    EXPAND ALL
    Serendipitous finding not discussed by authors
    Timothy Spruill | Florida Hospital Family Medicine Residency
    What I found fascinating about the article is the decision tool starts by answering the \"Will this medication work for me?\" By stating as a fact that \"6 out of 10 people will feel better (indicating some positive response) with the first antidepressant they try\". Although the authors did not mention it, their data indicated that after 3 months only 32% of the total sample of 298 subjects showed any positive response (which is consistent with the placebo effect) and even more interesting--after 6 months the number dropped slightly to 31%. While this slight drop is obviously not statistically significant, one would hope for a measureable if not significant improvement in outcome after six months. When it comes to remission which is harder to achieve but is most desirable, at 3 months 19% were in remission and then at 6 months the percentage dropped slightly to 18%, failing once again to show improved outcome over time. So, the data actually shows that only 3/10 instead of 6/10 get a positive response (one that is comparable to placebo) after being placed on any of the 12 medications included. One serendipitous conclusion appears to be consistent with that of numerous researchers that SSRI's fail to improve upon outcomes produced by placebos. It would have been interesting to see the results had the authors included a placebo arm though I understand that the original intent of the study did not require one.
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    READ MORE
    Original Investigation
    November 2015

    Shared Decision Making for Antidepressants in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Trial

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Division of Health Care Policy and Research, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
    • 2Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
    • 3Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Mayo Clinic Center for the Science of Healthcare Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
    • 4Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
    • 5Health Research & Educational Trust, Chicago, Illinois
    • 6Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
    • 7Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
    • 8Division of General Internal Medicine, Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota
    • 9Department of Family Medicine, Mayo Clinic Health Systems-Franciscan Healthcare, La Crosse, Wisconsin
    • 10Department of Family Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
    • 11Media Support Services Division, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
    • 12Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
    JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(11):1761-1770. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.5214
    Abstract

    Importance  For antidepressants, the translation of evidence of comparative effectiveness into practice is suboptimal. This deficit directly affects outcomes and quality of care for patients with depression. To overcome this problem, we developed the Depression Medication Choice (DMC) encounter decision aid, designed to help patients and clinicians consider the available antidepressants and the extent to which they improved depression and other issues important to patients.

    Objective  Estimate the effect of DMC on quality of the decision‐making process and depression outcomes.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  We conducted a cluster randomized trial of adults with moderate to severe depression considering treatment with an antidepressant. Primary care practices in 10 rural, suburban, and urban primary care practices across Minnesota and Wisconsin were randomly allocated to treatment of depression with or without use of the DMC decision aid.

    Intervention  Depression Medication Choice, a series of cards, each highlighting the effect of the available options on an issue of importance to patients for use during face-to-face consultations.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  Decision-making quality as judged by patient knowledge and involvement in decision making, patient and clinician decisional comfort (Decisional Conflict Scale) and satisfaction, encounter duration, medication adherence, depression symptoms, and the Patient Health Questionnaire for depression (PHQ-9).

    Results  We enrolled 117 clinicians and 301 patients (67% women; mean [SD] age, 44 [15] years; mean [SD] PHQ-9 score, 15 [4]) into the trial. Compared with usual care (UC), use of DMC significantly improved patients’ decisional comfort (DMC, 80% vs UC, 75%; P = .02), knowledge (DMC, 65% vs UC, 56%; P = .03), satisfaction (risk ratio [RR], from 1.25 [P = .81] to RR, 2.4 [P = .002] depending on satisfaction domain), and involvement (DMC, 47% vs UC, 33%; P<.001). It also improved clinicians’ decisional comfort (DMC, 80% vs UC, 68%; P < .001) and satisfaction (RR, 1.64; P = .02). There were no differences in encounter duration, medication adherence, or improvement of depression control between arms.

    Conclusions and Relevance  The DMC decision aid helped primary care clinicians and patients with moderate to severe depression select antidepressants together, improving the decision-making process without extending the visit. On the other hand, DMC had no discernible effect on medication adherence or depression outcomes. By translating comparative effectiveness into patient-centered care, use of DMC improved the quality of primary care for patients with depression.

    Trial Registration  clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01502891

    ×