[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Figure.
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Depression Study Flow Diagram
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Depression Study Flow Diagram

AUDIT indicates Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test; PDS, PTSD Diagnostic Scale; SCL-20, Somatic Symptom Severity Score-20.

aA total of 273 participants had data at baseline and all follow-ups for PDS; 280 participants had data at baseline and all follow-ups for SCL-20.

bA total of 271 participants had data at baseline and all follow-ups for PDS; 279 participants had data at baseline and all follow-ups for SCL-20.

Table 1.  
Baseline Characteristics of Randomized Study Patients
Baseline Characteristics of Randomized Study Patients
Table 2.  
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)- and Depression-Related Outcomes Among Study Participants
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)- and Depression-Related Outcomes Among Study Participants
Table 3.  
Changes in Secondary Outcomes Among Study Participants From Baseline to Each Follow-up Assessment
Changes in Secondary Outcomes Among Study Participants From Baseline to Each Follow-up Assessment
Table 4.  
Patient-Reported Mental Health Service Use by Treatment Group
Patient-Reported Mental Health Service Use by Treatment Group
1.
Institute of Medicine.  Treatment for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Military and Veteran Populations: Final Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences; 2014.
2.
Hoge  CW, Castro  CA, Messer  SC, McGurk  D, Cotting  DI, Koffman  RL.  Combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, mental health problems, and barriers to care.  N Engl J Med. 2004;351(1):13-22.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Tanielian  TL, Jaycox  LH.  Invisible Wounds of War: Psychological and Cognitive Injuries, Their Consequences, and Services to Assist Recovery. Washington, DC: RAND Corporation; 2008.
4.
Hoge  CW, Lesikar  SE, Guevara  R,  et al.  Mental disorders among US military personnel in the 1990s: association with high levels of health care utilization and early military attrition.  Am J Psychiatry. 2002;159(9):1576-1583.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Hoge  CW, Terhakopian  A, Castro  CA, Messer  SC, Engel  CC.  Association of posttraumatic stress disorder with somatic symptoms, health care visits, and absenteeism among Iraq war veterans.  Am J Psychiatry. 2007;164(1):150-153.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Woltmann  E, Grogan-Kaylor  A, Perron  B, Georges  H, Kilbourne  AM, Bauer  MS.  Comparative effectiveness of collaborative chronic care models for mental health conditions across primary, specialty, and behavioral health care settings: systematic review and meta-analysis.  Am J Psychiatry. 2012;169(8):790-804.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Archer  J, Bower  P, Gilbody  S,  et al.  Collaborative care for depression and anxiety problems.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;10:CD006525.PubMedGoogle Scholar
8.
Roy-Byrne  P, Craske  MG, Sullivan  G,  et al.  Delivery of evidence-based treatment for multiple anxiety disorders in primary care: a randomized controlled trial.  JAMA. 2010;303(19):1921-1928.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Rollman  BL, Belnap  BH, Mazumdar  S,  et al.  A randomized trial to improve the quality of treatment for panic and generalized anxiety disorders in primary care.  Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005;62(12):1332-1341.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Alexopoulos  GS, Reynolds  CF  III, Bruce  ML,  et al; PROSPECT Group.  Reducing suicidal ideation and depression in older primary care patients: 24-month outcomes of the PROSPECT study.  Am J Psychiatry. 2009;166(8):882-890.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Watson  LC, Amick  HR, Gaynes  BN,  et al.  Practice-based interventions addressing concomitant depression and chronic medical conditions in the primary care setting: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  J Prim Care Community Health. 2013;4(4):294-306.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Kroenke  K, Krebs  EE, Wu  J, Yu  Z, Chumbler  NR, Bair  MJ.  Telecare collaborative management of chronic pain in primary care: a randomized clinical trial.  JAMA. 2014;312(3):240-248.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Dobscha  SK, Corson  K, Perrin  NA,  et al.  Collaborative care for chronic pain in primary care: a cluster randomized trial.  JAMA. 2009;301(12):1242-1252.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Fortney  JC, Pyne  JM, Kimbrell  TA,  et al.  Telemedicine-based collaborative care for posttraumatic stress disorder: a randomized clinical trial.  JAMA Psychiatry. 2015;72(1):58-67.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Schnurr  PP, Friedman  MJ, Oxman  TE,  et al.  RESPECT-PTSD: re-engineering systems for the primary care treatment of PTSD, a randomized controlled trial.  J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28(1):32-40.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Meredith  LS, Eisenman  DP, Han  B,  et al.  Impact of collaborative care for underserved patients with PTSD in primary care: a randomized controlled trial.  J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(5):509-517.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Belsher  BE, Curry  J, McCutchan  P,  et al.  Implementation of a collaborative care initiative for PTSD and depression in the army primary care system.  Soc Work Ment Health. 2014;12(5-6):500-522.Google ScholarCrossref
18.
Wong  EC, Jaycox  LH, Ayer  LA,  et al.  Evaluating the Implementation of Re-Engineering Systems of Primary Care Treatment in the Military (RESPECT-Mil). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2015.
19.
Institute of Medicine.  Returning Home From Iraq and Afghanistan: Assessment of Readjustment Needs of Veterans, Service Members, and Their Families. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences; 2013.
20.
Engel  CC, Bray  RM, Jaycox  LH,  et al.  Implementing collaborative primary care for depression and posttraumatic stress disorder: design and sample for a randomized trial in the US military health system.  Contemp Clin Trials. 2014;39(2):310-319.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Engel  CC, Oxman  T, Yamamoto  C,  et al.  RESPECT-Mil: feasibility of a systems-level collaborative care approach to depression and post-traumatic stress disorder in military primary care.  Mil Med. 2008;173(10):935-940.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Oxman  TE, Dietrich  AJ, Williams  JW  Jr, Kroenke  K.  A three-component model for reengineering systems for the treatment of depression in primary care.  Psychosomatics. 2002;43(6):441-450.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Babor  TF, Higgins-Biddle  JC, Saunders  JB, Monteiro  MG.  The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test: Guidelines for Use in Primary Care. 2nd ed. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2001.
24.
Sheehan  DV, Lecrubier  Y, Sheehan  KH,  et al.  The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI): the development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10.  J Clin Psychiatry. 1998;59(suppl 20):22-33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
25.
Foa  E.  The Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale (PDS) Manual. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems; 1995.
26.
Foa  EB, Cashman  L, Jaycox  L, Perry  K.  The validation of a self-report measure of posttraumatic stress disorder: the Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale.  Psychol Assess. 1997;9(4):445-451.Google ScholarCrossref
27.
Williams  JW  Jr, Stellato  CP, Cornell  J, Barrett  JE.  The 13- and 20-item Hopkins Symptom Checklist Depression Scale: psychometric properties in primary care patients with minor depression or dysthymia.  Int J Psychiatry Med. 2004;34(1):37-50.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Kroenke  K, Spitzer  RL, Williams  JB.  The PHQ-15: validity of a new measure for evaluating the severity of somatic symptoms.  Psychosom Med. 2002;64(2):258-266.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Ware  J  Jr, Kosinski  M, Keller  SDA.  A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity.  Med Care. 1996;34(3):220-233.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Ware  JE, Kosinski  M, Turner-Bowker  DM, Gandek  B.  How to Score Version 2 of the SF-12 Health Survey (With a Supplement Documenting Version 1). Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Inc; 2002.
31.
Cleeland  CS, Ryan  KM.  Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory.  Ann Acad Med Singapore. 1994;23(2):129-138.PubMedGoogle Scholar
32.
Bush  K, Kivlahan  DR, McDonell  MB, Fihn  SD, Bradley  KA; Ambulatory Care Quality Improvement Project (ACQUIP).  The AUDIT alcohol consumption questions (AUDIT-C): an effective brief screening test for problem drinking.  Arch Intern Med. 1998;158(16):1789-1795.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Hoge  CW, Grossman  SH, Auchterlonie  JL, Riviere  LA, Milliken  CS, Wilk  JE.  PTSD treatment for soldiers after combat deployment: low utilization of mental health care and reasons for dropout.  Psychiatr Serv. 2014;65(8):997-1004.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Wang  PS, Berglund  P, Olfson  M, Pincus  HA, Wells  KB, Kessler  RC.  Failure and delay in initial treatment contact after first onset of mental disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication.  Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005;62(6):603-613.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Tanielian  T, Woldetsadik  MA, Jaycox  LH,  et al.  Barriers to engaging service members in mental health care within the US military health system [published online March 15, 2016].  Psychiatr Serv. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201500237.Google Scholar
36.
Neuhauser  JA.  Lives of quiet desperation: the conflict between military necessity and confidentiality.  Creighton Law Rev. 2010;44:1003-1044.Google Scholar
37.
Belsher  BE, Jaycox  LH, Freed  MC,  et al.  Mental health utilization patterns during a stepped, collaborative care effectiveness trial for PTSD and depression in the military health system [published online April 22, 2016].  Med Care. doi:10.1097/MLR.0000000000000545.Google Scholar
38.
Kaltenthaler  E, Brazier  J, De Nigris  E,  et al.  Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy for depression and anxiety update: a systematic review and economic evaluation.  Health Technol Assess. 2006;10(33):1-168.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Litz  BT, Engel  CC, Bryant  RA, Papa  A.  A randomized, controlled proof-of-concept trial of an Internet-based, therapist-assisted self-management treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder.  Am J Psychiatry. 2007;164(11):1676-1683.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Wang  PS, Simon  GE, Avorn  J,  et al.  Telephone screening, outreach, and care management for depressed workers and impact on clinical and work productivity outcomes: a randomized controlled trial.  JAMA. 2007;298(12):1401-1411.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
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
42.
Lang  AJ, Stein  MB.  An abbreviated PTSD checklist for use as a screening instrument in primary care.  Behav Res Ther. 2005;43(5):585-594.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Fortney  JC, Pyne  JM, Steven  CA,  et al.  A Web-based clinical decision support system for depression care management.  Am J Manag Care. 2010;16(11):849-854.PubMedGoogle Scholar
44.
Unützer  J, Choi  Y, Cook  IA, Oishi  S.  A web-based data management system to improve care for depression in a multicenter clinical trial.  Psychiatr Serv. 2002;53(6):671-673, 678.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Investigation
July 2016

Centrally Assisted Collaborative Telecare for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Depression Among Military Personnel Attending Primary CareA Randomized Clinical Trial

Author Affiliations
  • 1RAND Corporation, Boston, Massachusetts
  • 2Department of Psychiatry, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland
  • 3Deployment Health Clinical Center, Silver Spring, Maryland
  • 4now with National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
  • 5RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
  • 6Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle
  • 7Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts
    † Deceased.
 

Copyright 2016 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use.

JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(7):948-956. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.2402
Abstract

Importance  It is often difficult for members of the US military to access high-quality care for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression.

Objective  To determine effectiveness of a centrally assisted collaborative telecare (CACT) intervention for PTSD and depression in military primary care.

Design, Setting, and Participants  The STEPS-UP study (Stepped Enhancement of PTSD Services Using Primary Care) is a randomized trial comparing CACT with usual integrated mental health care for PTSD or depression. Patients, mostly men in their 20s, were enrolled from 18 primary care clinics at 6 military installations from February 2012 to August 2013 with 12-month follow-up completed in October 2014.

Interventions  Randomization was to CACT (n = 332) or usual care (n = 334). The CACT patients received 12 months of stepped psychosocial and pharmacologic treatment with nurse telecare management of caseloads, symptoms, and treatment.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Primary outcomes were severity scores on the PTSD Diagnostic Scale (PDS; scored 0-51) and Symptom Checklist depression items (SCL-20; scored 0-4). Secondary outcomes were somatic symptoms, pain severity, health-related function, and mental health service use.

Results  Of 666 patients, 81% were male and the mean (SD) age was 31.1 (7.7) years. The CACT and usual care patients had similar baseline mean (SD) PDS PTSD (29.4 [9.4] vs 28.9 [8.9]) and SCL-20 depression (2.1 [0.6] vs 2.0 [0.7]) scores. Compared with usual care, CACT patients reported significantly greater mean (SE) 12-month decrease in PDS PTSD scores (−6.07 [0.68] vs −3.54 [0.72]) and SCL-20 depression scores −0.56 [0.05] vs −0.31 [0.05]). In the CACT group, significantly more participants had 50% improvement at 12 months compared with usual care for both PTSD (73 [25%] vs 49 [17%]; relative risk, 1.6 [95% CI, 1.1-2.4]) and depression (86 [30%] vs 59 [21%]; relative risk, 1.7 [95% CI, 1.1-2.4]), with a number needed to treat for a 50% improvement of 12.5 (95% CI, 6.9-71.9) and 11.1 (95% CI, 6.2-50.5), respectively. The CACT patients had significant improvements in somatic symptoms (difference between mean 12-month Patient Health Questionnaire 15 changes, −1.37 [95% CI, −2.26 to −0.47]) and mental health–related functioning (difference between mean 12-month Short Form-12 Mental Component Summary changes, 3.17 [95% CI, 0.91 to 5.42]), as well as increases in telephone health contacts and appropriate medication use.

Conclusions and Relevance  Central assistance for collaborative telecare with stepped psychosocial management modestly improved outcomes of PTSD and depression among military personnel attending primary care.

Trial Registration  clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01492348

Introduction

Mental health care in the military is an international priority, and the Institute of Medicine has described a need for the US Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs to implement integrated, guideline-concordant posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) care.1(pp149-173,216-218,221-224) The prevalence of PTSD after military deployment is an estimated 13% to 18%, with severe PTSD, anxiety, or depression in 28%.2,3(pp43-47,251,252) These problems cause suffering and impairment and contribute to military attrition, absenteeism, misconduct, and sick call visits.4,5 Fewer than half of affected serving military personnel receive military mental health services, and often services are not timely or adequate.2,3

Collaborative care is an empirically supported method of extending the reach, quality, and outcomes of care for common mental disorders in medical settings.6,7 Randomized trials of collaborative care have demonstrated improved outcomes among patients with depression and anxiety,7-9 depression-related suicidal ideation,10 depression and chronic health conditions (eg, diabetes, asthma),11 and chronic pain.12,13 For PTSD, however, we are aware of only 3 published randomized trials, 1 demonstrating improvements in PTSD14 and 2 that do not15,16—hence the need for additional study of collaborative care for PTSD.

Recent military efforts to address mental health services have sought to better integrate them into primary care, and the first US Army integration approach began in 2007.17,18(pp1-13,71) However, no controlled trials of military integration efforts have been completed. Meanwhile, access to and quality of mental health services for military personnel has remained a recurring public policy concern.1,19(pp413-455,478-480) We report the results of a multisite randomized trial of centrally assisted collaborative telecare (CACT) for PTSD and depression among military personnel attending primary care. The STEPS-UP Trial (Stepped Enhancement of PTSD Services Using Primary Care) compares CACT with the Army’s preexisting program integrating behavioral health in primary care.

Box Section Ref ID

Key Points

  • Question Can central assistance of collaborative primary care for military-related posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression improve outcomes?

  • Findings In a randomized trial of 666 adults, mostly men in their 20s, compared with usual integrated care, patients receiving centrally assisted collaborative telecare (CACT) reported significantly larger decreases in PTSD and depressive symptoms and significantly more had clinically significant (50%) improvements in PTSD and depression at 12 months.

  • Meaning Central implementation assistance of collaborative primary care for PTSD and depression modestly improved outcomes in military personnel and may offer an effective approach for other groups of people with PTSD.

Methods
Design

The study design is published elsewhere,20 and the protocol is available in the Supplement. The study was reviewed and approved by institutional research review boards at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (primary), 6 participating Army installations (ie, military base/post, each of which may host multiple participating clinics), RTI International, RAND Corporation, University of Washington, Boston Veterans Affairs, and the Human Research Protection Office, US Army Medical Research Command. All participants provided written informed consent before enrollment.

A 2 parallel arm randomized design was used to evaluate the effectiveness of a 12-month primary care program for military personnel with PTSD and/or depression. An effectiveness design was chosen to enhance the generalizability of findings.20 The primary hypothesis was that CACT is superior to usual integrated mental health care for improving PTSD and depression in primary care.

Intervention
Usual Care

In 2007, Army primary care clinics began an integrated mental health approach called RESPECT-Mil18,21 based on a “3-component model.”22 This program constituted usual care. This model for PTSD and depression (1) equipped and trained clinics to screen at each visit and use symptom severity tools for diagnosis and assessment; (2) used nurse care managers to contact patients monthly and provide symptom status to primary care clinicians; and (3) increased access to non–primary care clinic–based mental health specialists. All 18 participating primary care clinics at 6 Army installations (and 97 worldwide clinics at 39 Army installations) used this model. Installation “champions” oversaw model implementation.

Centrally Assisted Collaborative Telecare

The components of CACT are described in the Box.

Box Section Ref ID
Box.

Centrally Assisted Collaborative Telecare (CACT)

Centrally assisted collaborative telecare added to usual integrated mental health in primary care in 4 ways:

  1. Care Manager Patient Engagement Training. Both CACT and usual care used nurse care managers. In CACT, care facilitators were trained and coached weekly by telephone in behavioral activation, problem solving, and motivational interviewing. Care managers used these skills to help CACT patients make evidence-based treatment decisions, provide basic psychosocial support, monitor/encourage adherence to medication and psychotherapy, and connect to needed specialty services.

  2. Stepped Psychosocial Treatment Options. Both CACT and usual care offered stepped pharmacologic treatment and specialty mental health services. In CACT, care managers assisted patients with online cognitive-behavioral self-management38,39 and a psychologist delivered telephonic cognitive behavioral therapy using a modularized, flexible, problem-based protocol40; and site therapists offered face-to-face psychotherapy in a primary care or specialty setting.

  3. Electronic Symptom Registry. Care managers for both CACT and usual care were trained to use an online interface for measurement-based assessments (including severity of depression [PHQ-9]41 and posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD Checklist, Civilian Version {PCL-C}]).42 In CACT, a central symptom registry was derived from assessments and used to identify patients in need of treatment change (ie, suicidal behavior; <5 point improvement in PCL-C and PHQ-9 since the last treatment change; PCL-C >30 or PHQ-9 >10; >4 weeks from last care manager contact). The registry was also used to monitor care manager performance.43,44

  4. Central Telepsychiatry, Telepsychology, and Telecare Manager Assistance. For CACT, a central psychiatrist, psychologist, and nurse care manager remotely assisted sites. The psychiatrist used the electronic registry for weekly care manager caseload reviews, suggesting treatment changes to primary care via electronic medical record. The psychologist delivered telephone-based cognitive behavioral therapy for selected patients and engagement training/coaching for care managers. The care manager helped to follow mobile patients (those who deploy, move, leave the military, or change duty installation) and backed care managers remotely.

Participants and Data Collection

From February 1, 2012, through August 31, 2013, 666 patients were randomized at 18 troop medical clinics at 6 large Army installations: Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington; Fort Bliss, Texas; Fort Hood, Texas; Fort Stewart, Georgia; Fort Campbell, Kentucky; and Fort Carson, Colorado. Primary care clinicians referred appropriate patients to nurse care managers per usual care. Research assistants assessed eligibility and obtained informed consent. Eligible patients (1) were on active duty, (2) met study criteria for probable PTSD (≥1 intrusion symptom, ≥3 avoidance symptoms, and ≥2 hyperarousal symptoms of at least moderate level on the PTSD Checklist, Civilian Version) or depression (≥5 Patient Health Questionnaire Depression Severity [PHQ-9] symptoms: thoughts of self harm at least “several days” in the past 2 weeks or other symptoms at least “more than half the days”), and (3) reported access to internet and email. Study assessments were done online or, in a few cases, by telephone or paper questionnaire.

Exclusions were (1) current alcohol dependence (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test [AUDIT] ≥15),23(pp19-21) (2) active suicidal ideation in the prior 2 months (Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview [MINI]-Plus Suicidality Module score >9),24 (3) major geographic relocation in the next 6 months (eg, change of station, deployment, demobilization, separation); or (4) current duties in a participating clinic.

Randomization

After baseline assessment, participants were randomized in real time centrally to CACT or usual care by a computer-automated system that sent results to patients and care managers (Figure). Stratification was by site. Automated emails prompted follow-up research assessments. In the absence of response to initial emails, added methods were used on a predetermined schedule: (1) reminder phone calls, (2) reminder emails, (3) telephone interviewer contacts, (4) reminder texts, and (5) paper questionnaire mailing. Research assessments were by direct computer entry at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months.

Outcomes
Primary

Primary outcomes were the Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale (PDS)25,26 for PTSD symptoms and the Symptom Checklist Depression Scale (SCL-20) for depressive symptoms.27 The PDS (17 items) assesses severity of PTSD symptoms over the prior 4 weeks with high internal consistency and test-retest reliability26; scores are summed and range from 0 to 51; scores of 10 or less are mild; 11 to 20, moderate; 21 to 35, moderate to severe; and at least 36, severe. The SCL-20 is composed of 13 Hopkins Symptom Checklist Depression Scale items plus 7 additional depression items from the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised. The latter items better covered all diagnostic symptoms of depression and improve sensitivity to clinical change. Scores are a mean of item scores and range from 0 to 3.27

Secondary

Secondary outcomes were suicidality, physical symptoms, pain intensity and interference, alcohol misuse, and physical and mental health–related quality of life. Suicidality was assessed with 3 items (hopelessness, thoughts of death, and thoughts of suicide) from the SCL-20.27 Physical symptom severity was assessed with the PHQ-15, a 15-item scale scored from 0 to 30.28 Health-related quality of life was assessed on the Short Form-12 (SF-12) subscales measuring physical health and mental health–related functioning.29 Subscales are normed for the general population so that mean and standard deviation are approximately 50 and 10, respectively.30 Pain intensity and interference were assessed with the Adapted Numeric Rating Scale for Pain31; each item is rated on a 0-to-10 Likert scale. Alcohol misuse was measured using the 3 AUDIT consumption questions (AUDIT-C) that sum to scores of 0 to 12.32 Patients reported amount and type of health care and medication use at each assessment. Counts of key intervention components were derived: number of individual patient visits with a mental health specialist and number of telephone contacts with a clinician such as a care manager or other telephone assistance (eg, crisis or helpline). Psychoactive medications were coded for type and duration, and used to derive a count of months of receipt of a guideline-concordant depression medication (ie, antidepressant) or PTSD medication (ie, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, prazosin hydrochloride).

Safety and Adverse Events

Serious adverse events were defined as participant death from any cause, or psychiatric emergency or hospitalization related to study participation. The study data and safety monitoring board chair and site-specific independent study monitors reviewed all adverse event reports to ensure safe study implementation.

Statistical Analyses

For the sample size calculations, we focused on the effect size, ∆⁄σ, for 12-month changes in scores in the 2 treatment groups, where ∆ is the expected value of the difference between mean 12-month changes and σ is the within-group standard deviation at each time point. Initially, we assumed, conservatively, zero correlation between repeated measurements on the same participant, reflecting that a study with 600 participants per arm (750 assuming 20% attrition) and a type I error rate of .025 to account for 2 end points of interest would have power of 0.80 to detect an effect size of ∆⁄σ = 0.252. We reevaluated the sample size calculations after 129 subjects completed 12-month assessments. Correlations between repeated measurements were nearly all greater than 0.50. A correlation of 0.50 reduced the required sample size for the same power and effect size to 300 participants per treatment group.

Analysis of scores on the PDS and SCL-20 was based on an exponential model of score vs time:

Image description not available.where sijk is score (PDS or SCL-20) for participant i in treatment arm j (j = 1,2) at assessment k (k = 1,..,4); βj1, βj2, and βj3are fixed parameters; bij is a normally distributed random parameter with mean zero; tijk is time on study at assessment k; and dijk is a normally distributed error term with mean zero. This model accurately described changes both in mean scores and in the variance of scores at each assessment. Under this model,

Image description not available.Under the null hypothesis that Δ = 0, Δ/SE(Δ) has approximately a standard normal distribution.

To assess clinical significance, we compared the proportions of participants achieving more than 50% score reduction at the 3 follow-ups using a generalized linear model with generalized estimating equation to account for correlations between repeated observations on the same participants.

Changes in the secondary end points were compared using repeated-measures linear models (the exponential model did not fit the data). Predictors included treatment group, time, and the interaction of time and group, with the interaction included to provide a test for differences between time trends in the 2 groups. Health care use was compared using Poisson regression with generalized estimating equation and baseline use as a covariate. Other predictors included treatment group, an ordinal categorical variable for time, and their interaction.

For PDS and SCL-20 scores, we tested differences between changes in the treatment arms over the first 3 months and the first 6 months to see whether differences identified over 12 months were apparent earlier. We repeated this for the proportion with greater than 50% reduction in score. We performed overall tests over 12 months when comparing treatment arms for secondary end points or health care use.

The main analysis was done at the end of the trial and included all randomized participants with usable outcome data according to the intention-to-treat principle. Number needed to treat for a binary outcome was 1 divided by the absolute difference between groups. Analyses were conducted using SAS/STAT software, version 9.3, of the SAS System for Windows.

Results
Sample

The Figure presents the study flow diagram. Follow-up assessments were completed by 618 patients at 3 months (93%), 600 at 6 months (90%) and 580 at 12 months (87%). Of 666 randomized patients, 332 were assigned to CACT and 334 to usual care. Complete follow-up data were obtained for 273 (82%) CACT and 280 (84%) usual care participants. Only 9 (3%) CACT participants and 21 (6%) usual care participants had baseline data but no follow-up data. The CACT and usual care groups were balanced on baseline characteristics (Table 1). Participants were mostly men in their 20s. Mean PDS PTSD score was 29.2, indicating moderate to severe PTSD, and mean SCL-20 depression score was 2.1, indicating moderate depression severity.

PTSD and Depression Outcomes

Compared with usual care, patients in CACT reported significantly greater reductions in PTSD and depression symptoms over 12 months of follow-up (Table 2). The CACT patients reported significantly greater 12-month decrease in mean PDS PTSD scores (−2.53 [95% CI, −4.47 to −0.59]) and SCL-20 depression scores (−0.26 [95% CI, −0.41 to −0.11]). Fifty percent improvements were significantly greater at 12 months for the CACT group than the usual care group for both PTSD (73 [25%] vs 49 [17%] patients; RR, 1.6 [95% CI, 1.1-2.4]) and depression (86 [30%] vs 59 [21%]; RR, 1.7 [95% CI, 1.1-2.4]), with a number needed to treat for a 50% improvement of 12.5 (95% CI, 6.9-71.9) and 11.1 (95% CI, 6.2-50.5), respectively. Differences in effects were significant at 12 months for PTSD and at 6 and 12 months for depression. Adjusting for site had little impact on the difference between 12-month changes in scores in the 2 treatment groups or in the standard error of the difference.

Secondary Health Outcomes

Significant improvements in CACT vs usual care were noted for physical symptoms (PHQ-15) and mental health functioning (SF-12 mental component) but not alcohol consumption (AUDIT-C), physical health function (SF-12 physical component), or pain intensity/interference (Table 3). Of note, repeated-measures analysis (by treatment group, time, and their interaction) revealed significant reductions in suicide-related SCL-20 items in the CACT arm (vs no change in usual care) for “hopelessness about the future” (P = .04), “thoughts of death and dying” (P = .003), and in “thoughts of ending one’s life” (P = .04).

Process of Care

We examined 4 key aspects of the process of care expected to differ between CACT and usual care: individual psychotherapy, telephone contacts with the care manager, and use of appropriate PTSD or depression medications (Table 4). No treatment-by-time interactions were detected on these measures, but CACT participants reported significantly more telephone contacts and more months of use of an appropriate PTSD and depression medication. No differences were detected in the number of individual visits with a mental health specialist.

Adverse Events

There were no study-related deaths, psychiatric emergencies, or hospitalizations.

Discussion

In a randomized clinical trial, military personnel attending primary care with PTSD or depression who were referred to 12 months of centrally assisted telecare with stepped psychosocial and pharmacologic management (CACT) reported significant improvements in PTSD and depression severity, physical symptom severity, and mental health function compared with those referred to usual integrated mental health care. Differences between the 2 groups were small to modest in size, with numbers needed to treat for 50% improvement of PTSD and depression of 12.5 and 11.1, respectively. However, improvements increased over time, and an effective primary care program may reduce treatment delays and extend the reach of treatment. Our findings are noteworthy because most service members with PTSD have received no or inadequate treatment in the past year,2,3,33 and in the most recent available estimates, the median time from onset to first PTSD treatment nationally was an estimated 12 years.34

Modest CACT effects may have been related to several factors. First, to maximize generalizability, patients with a variety of medical and psychiatric comorbidities were included (eg, mild traumatic brain injury, anxiety disorders, problem alcohol consumption). Indeed, 14% were undergoing medical retirement at randomization. Second, usual care was a long-standing program of mental health integration using routine screening, care management, and measurement-based assessment.18 Pre-post effects, however, were also modest for both groups. Third, military personnel are difficult to engage in mental health treatment, and the military context is challenging, as corroborated by a separate qualitative substudy within this project.35 Service members are highly mobile; many left the military during study follow-up; and confidentiality concerns36 may erode trust and confidence in mental health services. Fourth, in contrast to previous collaborative care trials, participants were mainly men in their 20s, a demographic group that is unlikely to seek mental health care. Fifth, guideline-concordant psychotherapies for PTSD were difficult to obtain, even though clinics were staffed with specialists. Telephone contacts were greater in CACT than in usual care and CACT improved matching of care to clinical complexity,37 but overall increases in medication and psychotherapy use were small.

Delayed PTSD improvement compared with improvement in depression is perhaps a function of the greater complexity and comorbidity associated with PTSD, and fewer and less efficacious pharmacologic options for PTSD. In qualitative research completed during the trial, many primary care clinicians expressed discomfort with treating PTSD.18 We did not find significant improvements in alcohol misuse or in pain outcomes; however, we observed significant improvements in mental health–related function and overall physical symptom severity, suggesting that the impact of the intervention went beyond the targeted disorders. Of note, CACT was associated with reductions in suicidal ideation, findings consistent with previous studies of collaborative care for depression.10

Three collaborative care trials have reported on PTSD outcomes. Two trials15,16 found no benefit associated with models that mainly relied on psychiatrist-supervised care managers, measurement-based symptom severity assessments, and stepped pharmacologic management. Fortney and colleagues14 found improved PTSD outcomes using a collaborative care approach to PTSD designed to extend the reach and increase the use of cognitive processing therapy. Centrally assisted collaborative telecare also offered stepped telephone-based mental health support; although more research is needed, remote psychotherapeutic approaches may be an important aspect of collaborative care for PTSD.

Several study limitations should be considered. First, we randomized a multicomponent treatment approach aiming to increase guideline-concordant care, and this pragmatic design did not allow randomized comparisons of individual treatment components. Second, we used self-reported utilization data because participants in both groups often left the military and its health system, limiting analyses of the impact of care processes on treatment effect. Third, we have yet to report information about the cost and cost-effectiveness of this intervention. Nonetheless, there is potential for central assistance to create economies of scale that allow support for small, rural, remote, or underresourced primary care clinics where specialists are usually not available.

Conclusions

We found that central assistance for collaborative telecare with stepped psychosocial management modestly improved outcomes of PTSD and depression among military personnel attending primary care. This approach may hold promise for other groups of people with similar conditions.

Back to top
Article Information

Corresponding Author: Charles C. Engel, MD, RAND Corporation, 20 Park Plaza, Ste 920, Boston, MA 02116 (cengel@rand.org).

Published Online: June 13, 2016. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.2402.

Author Contributions: Dr Engel had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Engel, Jaycox, Freed, Bray, Brambilla, Zatzick, Litz, Tanielian, Lane, Belsher, Olmsted, Unützer, Katon.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Engel, Jaycox, Freed, Bray, Brambilla, Zatzick, Tanielian, Novak, Lane, Belsher, Olmsted, Evatt, Vandermaas-Peeler, Katon.

Drafting of the manuscript: Engel, Jaycox, Freed, Bray, Brambilla, Zatzick, Novak, Lane, Belsher, Olmsted, Evatt, Vandermaas-Peeler, Katon.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Jaycox, Freed, Bray, Brambilla, Zatzick, Litz, Tanielian, Olmsted, Unützer, Katon.

Statistical analysis: Engel, Freed, Bray, Brambilla, Olmsted, Katon.

Obtained funding: Engel, Jaycox, Freed, Bray.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Engel, Jaycox, Freed, Bray, Zatzick, Litz, Novak, Lane, Belsher, Olmsted, Evatt, Vandermaas-Peeler, Unützer, Katon.

Study supervision: Engel, Freed, Bray, Zatzick, Katon.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by a US Department of Defense Deployment Related Medical Research Program award (grant DR080409). The award was a joint award to the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Inc (award W81XWH-09-2-0077), Research Triangle Institute (award W81XWH-09-2-0078), and RAND Corporation (award W81XWH-09-2-0079).

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The sponsor had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Health, or any US government agency.

Additional Contributions: We thank the many devoted care managers, research site investigators, site coordinators, primary care clinicians, clinic staff, and mental health specialists who supported the study and provided essential assistance to service members every day. The STEPS-UP Trial investigators acknowledge the recent loss of our coauthor, friend, and mentor, Wayne J. Katon, MD, and dedicate this article to him. Dr Katon provided a steady guiding hand throughout the project, and he spawned a generation of researchers and ideas toward improving mental and physical health care for primary care patients. Dear Wayne: Thank you. We miss you.

References
1.
Institute of Medicine.  Treatment for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Military and Veteran Populations: Final Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences; 2014.
2.
Hoge  CW, Castro  CA, Messer  SC, McGurk  D, Cotting  DI, Koffman  RL.  Combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, mental health problems, and barriers to care.  N Engl J Med. 2004;351(1):13-22.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Tanielian  TL, Jaycox  LH.  Invisible Wounds of War: Psychological and Cognitive Injuries, Their Consequences, and Services to Assist Recovery. Washington, DC: RAND Corporation; 2008.
4.
Hoge  CW, Lesikar  SE, Guevara  R,  et al.  Mental disorders among US military personnel in the 1990s: association with high levels of health care utilization and early military attrition.  Am J Psychiatry. 2002;159(9):1576-1583.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Hoge  CW, Terhakopian  A, Castro  CA, Messer  SC, Engel  CC.  Association of posttraumatic stress disorder with somatic symptoms, health care visits, and absenteeism among Iraq war veterans.  Am J Psychiatry. 2007;164(1):150-153.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Woltmann  E, Grogan-Kaylor  A, Perron  B, Georges  H, Kilbourne  AM, Bauer  MS.  Comparative effectiveness of collaborative chronic care models for mental health conditions across primary, specialty, and behavioral health care settings: systematic review and meta-analysis.  Am J Psychiatry. 2012;169(8):790-804.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Archer  J, Bower  P, Gilbody  S,  et al.  Collaborative care for depression and anxiety problems.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;10:CD006525.PubMedGoogle Scholar
8.
Roy-Byrne  P, Craske  MG, Sullivan  G,  et al.  Delivery of evidence-based treatment for multiple anxiety disorders in primary care: a randomized controlled trial.  JAMA. 2010;303(19):1921-1928.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Rollman  BL, Belnap  BH, Mazumdar  S,  et al.  A randomized trial to improve the quality of treatment for panic and generalized anxiety disorders in primary care.  Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005;62(12):1332-1341.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Alexopoulos  GS, Reynolds  CF  III, Bruce  ML,  et al; PROSPECT Group.  Reducing suicidal ideation and depression in older primary care patients: 24-month outcomes of the PROSPECT study.  Am J Psychiatry. 2009;166(8):882-890.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Watson  LC, Amick  HR, Gaynes  BN,  et al.  Practice-based interventions addressing concomitant depression and chronic medical conditions in the primary care setting: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  J Prim Care Community Health. 2013;4(4):294-306.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Kroenke  K, Krebs  EE, Wu  J, Yu  Z, Chumbler  NR, Bair  MJ.  Telecare collaborative management of chronic pain in primary care: a randomized clinical trial.  JAMA. 2014;312(3):240-248.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Dobscha  SK, Corson  K, Perrin  NA,  et al.  Collaborative care for chronic pain in primary care: a cluster randomized trial.  JAMA. 2009;301(12):1242-1252.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Fortney  JC, Pyne  JM, Kimbrell  TA,  et al.  Telemedicine-based collaborative care for posttraumatic stress disorder: a randomized clinical trial.  JAMA Psychiatry. 2015;72(1):58-67.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Schnurr  PP, Friedman  MJ, Oxman  TE,  et al.  RESPECT-PTSD: re-engineering systems for the primary care treatment of PTSD, a randomized controlled trial.  J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28(1):32-40.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Meredith  LS, Eisenman  DP, Han  B,  et al.  Impact of collaborative care for underserved patients with PTSD in primary care: a randomized controlled trial.  J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(5):509-517.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Belsher  BE, Curry  J, McCutchan  P,  et al.  Implementation of a collaborative care initiative for PTSD and depression in the army primary care system.  Soc Work Ment Health. 2014;12(5-6):500-522.Google ScholarCrossref
18.
Wong  EC, Jaycox  LH, Ayer  LA,  et al.  Evaluating the Implementation of Re-Engineering Systems of Primary Care Treatment in the Military (RESPECT-Mil). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2015.
19.
Institute of Medicine.  Returning Home From Iraq and Afghanistan: Assessment of Readjustment Needs of Veterans, Service Members, and Their Families. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences; 2013.
20.
Engel  CC, Bray  RM, Jaycox  LH,  et al.  Implementing collaborative primary care for depression and posttraumatic stress disorder: design and sample for a randomized trial in the US military health system.  Contemp Clin Trials. 2014;39(2):310-319.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Engel  CC, Oxman  T, Yamamoto  C,  et al.  RESPECT-Mil: feasibility of a systems-level collaborative care approach to depression and post-traumatic stress disorder in military primary care.  Mil Med. 2008;173(10):935-940.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Oxman  TE, Dietrich  AJ, Williams  JW  Jr, Kroenke  K.  A three-component model for reengineering systems for the treatment of depression in primary care.  Psychosomatics. 2002;43(6):441-450.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Babor  TF, Higgins-Biddle  JC, Saunders  JB, Monteiro  MG.  The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test: Guidelines for Use in Primary Care. 2nd ed. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2001.
24.
Sheehan  DV, Lecrubier  Y, Sheehan  KH,  et al.  The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI): the development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10.  J Clin Psychiatry. 1998;59(suppl 20):22-33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
25.
Foa  E.  The Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale (PDS) Manual. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems; 1995.
26.
Foa  EB, Cashman  L, Jaycox  L, Perry  K.  The validation of a self-report measure of posttraumatic stress disorder: the Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale.  Psychol Assess. 1997;9(4):445-451.Google ScholarCrossref
27.
Williams  JW  Jr, Stellato  CP, Cornell  J, Barrett  JE.  The 13- and 20-item Hopkins Symptom Checklist Depression Scale: psychometric properties in primary care patients with minor depression or dysthymia.  Int J Psychiatry Med. 2004;34(1):37-50.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Kroenke  K, Spitzer  RL, Williams  JB.  The PHQ-15: validity of a new measure for evaluating the severity of somatic symptoms.  Psychosom Med. 2002;64(2):258-266.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Ware  J  Jr, Kosinski  M, Keller  SDA.  A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity.  Med Care. 1996;34(3):220-233.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Ware  JE, Kosinski  M, Turner-Bowker  DM, Gandek  B.  How to Score Version 2 of the SF-12 Health Survey (With a Supplement Documenting Version 1). Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Inc; 2002.
31.
Cleeland  CS, Ryan  KM.  Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory.  Ann Acad Med Singapore. 1994;23(2):129-138.PubMedGoogle Scholar
32.
Bush  K, Kivlahan  DR, McDonell  MB, Fihn  SD, Bradley  KA; Ambulatory Care Quality Improvement Project (ACQUIP).  The AUDIT alcohol consumption questions (AUDIT-C): an effective brief screening test for problem drinking.  Arch Intern Med. 1998;158(16):1789-1795.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Hoge  CW, Grossman  SH, Auchterlonie  JL, Riviere  LA, Milliken  CS, Wilk  JE.  PTSD treatment for soldiers after combat deployment: low utilization of mental health care and reasons for dropout.  Psychiatr Serv. 2014;65(8):997-1004.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Wang  PS, Berglund  P, Olfson  M, Pincus  HA, Wells  KB, Kessler  RC.  Failure and delay in initial treatment contact after first onset of mental disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication.  Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005;62(6):603-613.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Tanielian  T, Woldetsadik  MA, Jaycox  LH,  et al.  Barriers to engaging service members in mental health care within the US military health system [published online March 15, 2016].  Psychiatr Serv. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201500237.Google Scholar
36.
Neuhauser  JA.  Lives of quiet desperation: the conflict between military necessity and confidentiality.  Creighton Law Rev. 2010;44:1003-1044.Google Scholar
37.
Belsher  BE, Jaycox  LH, Freed  MC,  et al.  Mental health utilization patterns during a stepped, collaborative care effectiveness trial for PTSD and depression in the military health system [published online April 22, 2016].  Med Care. doi:10.1097/MLR.0000000000000545.Google Scholar
38.
Kaltenthaler  E, Brazier  J, De Nigris  E,  et al.  Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy for depression and anxiety update: a systematic review and economic evaluation.  Health Technol Assess. 2006;10(33):1-168.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Litz  BT, Engel  CC, Bryant  RA, Papa  A.  A randomized, controlled proof-of-concept trial of an Internet-based, therapist-assisted self-management treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder.  Am J Psychiatry. 2007;164(11):1676-1683.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Wang  PS, Simon  GE, Avorn  J,  et al.  Telephone screening, outreach, and care management for depressed workers and impact on clinical and work productivity outcomes: a randomized controlled trial.  JAMA. 2007;298(12):1401-1411.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
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
42.
Lang  AJ, Stein  MB.  An abbreviated PTSD checklist for use as a screening instrument in primary care.  Behav Res Ther. 2005;43(5):585-594.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Fortney  JC, Pyne  JM, Steven  CA,  et al.  A Web-based clinical decision support system for depression care management.  Am J Manag Care. 2010;16(11):849-854.PubMedGoogle Scholar
44.
Unützer  J, Choi  Y, Cook  IA, Oishi  S.  A web-based data management system to improve care for depression in a multicenter clinical trial.  Psychiatr Serv. 2002;53(6):671-673, 678.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
×