0
Get Alert
Please Wait... Processing your request... Please Wait.
You must sign in to sign-up for alerts.

Please confirm that your email address is correct, so you can successfully receive this alert.

1
Editorials   |    
Should Mental Health Interventions Be Locally Grown or Factory-Farmed?
Gregory E. Simon, M.D. M.P.H.; Evette J. Ludman, Ph.D.
Am J Psychiatry 2013;170:362-365. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.13010043
View Author and Article Information

Dr. Simon has received consulting fees from Wolters Kluwer Publishing (UpToDate) and Optum Health. Dr. Freedman has reviewed this editorial and found no evidence of influence from these relationships. Dr. Ludman reports no financial relationships with commercial interests.

Supported by an NIMH cooperative agreement.

From the Group Health Research Institute, Seattle.

Address correspondence to Dr. Simon (simon.g@ghc.org).

Copyright © 2013 by the American Psychiatric Association

Accepted January , 2013.

In this issue, Fortney and colleagues (1) open the next phase of research regarding organized depression care programs. The effectiveness of these collaborative care programs is now well established (2, 3). Essential ingredients include outreach and support by a care manager as well as specialty supervision or consultation for patients who do not respond to standard treatment (2, 3). Such programs were initially developed in settings where care managers and consulting specialists were locally available (4). Fortney et al. compared two strategies for providing these services in settings lacking local mental health resources. Five federally qualified health centers were randomly assigned to implement depression care management using either local primary care staff (with no specific supervision or quality control) or centralized care managers supported by an off-site consulting specialist. Patients in clinics using the centralized approach were approximately three times as likely to experience significant improvement or to achieve remission of depression. Fidelity to the care management protocol (goal setting, encouragement of positive activities, and systematic assessment of treatment adherence and outcomes) was markedly higher for the centralized program. Antidepressant treatment did not differ between the two groups, suggesting that benefits of the centralized program were due to the psychosocial aspects of care management, including both nonspecific support and specific behavior-change interventions.

This finding has important implications for the implementation of organized depression care programs. Care management or collaborative care programs can certainly work in settings lacking on-site or local mental health providers. In fact, the benefits of organized depression care programs are greatest where existing care is minimal (57). But the Fortney et al. trial suggests that organized depression care programs in resource-poor settings are more likely to work if care management is centralized, care managers are employed full-time in this capacity, and care is supervised by off-site specialists. While one trial involving five clinics and a few care managers does not definitively settle this question, the only high-quality evidence available strongly favors the centralized approach.

More important, these findings raise broader questions regarding the implementation of other empirically supported mental health treatments. Efforts to disseminate these complex interventions have typically focused on training and supervision to improve services delivered by local community therapists (8). The Fortney et al. trial suggests the possibility of an alternative approach: delivering empirically supported treatments from a central location using dedicated clinicians. To traditionally minded clinicians, centralized or “factory farmed” psychosocial treatments would seem oxymoronic. But this question should be settled by evidence rather than tradition.

In our daily lives as consumers, we frequently face choices between locally made and centrally made services. Our preference for one or the other depends on the specifics of the situation. For example, many of us would prefer to eat hand-made bread, but most would prefer not to drive automobiles that depend on hand-made brakes. We might prefer corn that’s locally grown on a family farm, but most of us would be reluctant to fly in homemade airplanes. From those choices, we can infer our rules for choosing things that are either locally grown or factory-made. Some things (like fresh-baked bread and hand-picked sweet corn) just don’t travel well; the locally grown option will usually taste better. And variability between loaves of bread or ears of corn is hardly a problem. Variation often adds to the appeal and may add to the flavor. In contrast, airplanes and automobile brakes hold their quality well over long distances. Both were made to travel. For both airplanes and auto brakes, standardization is a virtue. We don’t mind that our brake parts were stamped out by machines that have made those same parts thousands of times. While sitting in an airplane about to take off, it’s comforting to think, “Millions of people have flown billions of miles in planes exactly like this one.”

Considering these examples, we might ask: Are mental health treatments more like sweet corn or automobile brakes? We would usually put medication treatments in the latter group, where we value uniform quality over one-of-a-kind craftsmanship. The recent meningitis outbreak traced to a compounding pharmacy only reinforces the argument for “factory-made” pharmaceuticals. A centralized and standardized production process for medication will generally improve both quality and safety. But we have traditionally considered psychosocial interventions (like care management or actual psychotherapy) to be more like artisan bread than auto brakes. We prefer our psychosocial interventions to be locally grown, hand-made, and one-of-a-kind.

The robust findings in the Fortney et al. trial cause us to reconsider an automatic preference for locally grown psychosocial interventions. Recalling our rules for choosing locally grown sweet corn and factory-made auto brakes, we can ask two questions about any psychosocial treatment. First, does it travel well, or does the quality decline over distance? Second, is local variation beneficial, or does centralized and standardized production improve quality or effectiveness?

Consistent evidence indicates that psychosocial interventions can be provided at a distance—via telephone or videoconference—with only minimal loss of taste or freshness. While the original collaborative care programs emphasized in-person treatment, many subsequent versions have depended largely or entirely on telephone contact (9, 10). Several trials support the clinical effectiveness of psychotherapy for depression delivered entirely by telephone (11). Psychiatric assessment and treatment via videoconference appear to be as clinically effective as in-person services (12). In the most direct comparison of in-person and telephone psychotherapy, Mohr et al. (13) randomly assigned primary care patients to receive cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy for depression by telephone or face-to-face. The two treatments were delivered by the same therapists following the same treatment protocol, so this comparison isolates the specific question regarding loss of clinical effectiveness in telephonic treatment. Patients assigned to telephone psychotherapy were more likely to continue treatment and experienced similar short-term improvement, but they were somewhat more likely to experience a return of depression 6 months later.

We have limited data directly comparing the fidelity or quality of locally produced (and more variable) psychosocial interventions to that of centrally produced (and more uniform) treatments. The Fortney et al. trial addresses this question directly. Care managers with the same background and training delivered the same intervention through either a centralized or a localized model. The centralized model was clearly superior—in quality of the service delivered, patients’ perceptions of helpfulness, and patients’ clinical outcomes. Any benefit of local relationships with patients or providers was outweighed by the higher quality of the centralized program. This finding in favor of centralization and standardization might not apply to treatments that are more intensive and complex, such as true psychotherapy. We can certainly point to evidence that centralized psychotherapy programs have clinical benefit. But we have no high-quality evidence directly comparing the effectiveness of centralized and locally provided psychotherapy. We hope that Fortney and colleagues’ provocative findings will provoke direct comparisons of centralized and locally produced approaches for a wider range of psychosocial or psychological treatments.

Healthy competition between centralized and localized options might improve them both—or lead to some optimal compromise. Mental health services delivered over a distance could develop a personal touch, and locally grown services could learn to systematically measure outcomes, monitor fidelity, and improve consistency. After all, modern statistics and experimental design began with traditional farmers trying to improve their harvests.

Fortney  JC;  Pyne  JM;  Mouden  SB;  Mittal  D;  Hudson  TJ;  Schroeder  GW;  Williams  DK;  Bynum  CA;  Mattox  R;  Rost  KM:  Practice-based versus telemedicine-based collaborative care for depression in rural federally qualified health centers: a pragmatic randomized comparative effectiveness trial.  Am J Psychiatry 2013; 170:414–425
 
Bower  P;  Gilbody  S;  Richards  D;  Fletcher  J;  Sutton  A:  Collaborative care for depression in primary care: making sense of a complex intervention: systematic review and meta-regression.  Br J Psychiatry 2006; 189:484–493
[CrossRef] | [PubMed]
 
Katon  W;  Unützer  J;  Wells  K;  Jones  L:  Collaborative depression care: history, evolution, and ways to enhance dissemination and sustainability.  Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2010; 32:456–464
[CrossRef] | [PubMed]
 
Katon  W;  Von Korff  M;  Lin  E;  Walker  E;  Simon  GE;  Bush  T;  Robinson  P;  Russo  J:  Collaborative management to achieve treatment guidelines: impact on depression in primary care.  JAMA 1995; 273:1026–1031
[CrossRef] | [PubMed]
 
Miranda  J;  Duan  N;  Sherbourne  C;  Schoenbaum  M;  Lagomasino  I;  Jackson-Triche  M;  Wells  KB:  Improving care for minorities: can quality improvement interventions improve care and outcomes for depressed minorities? Results of a randomized controlled trial.  Health Serv Res 2003; 38:613–630
[CrossRef] | [PubMed]
 
Araya  R;  Rojas  G;  Fritsch  R;  Gaete  J;  Rojas  M;  Simon  G;  Peters  TJ:  Treating depression in primary care in low-income women in Santiago, Chile: a randomised controlled trial.  Lancet 2003; 361:995–1000
[CrossRef] | [PubMed]
 
Patel  V;  Weiss  HA;  Chowdhary  N;  Naik  S;  Pednekar  S;  Chatterjee  S;  De Silva  MJ;  Bhat  B;  Araya  R;  King  M;  Simon  G;  Verdeli  H;  Kirkwood  BR:  Effectiveness of an intervention led by lay health counsellors for depressive and anxiety disorders in primary care in Goa, India (MANAS): a cluster randomised controlled trial.  Lancet 2010; 376:2086–2095
[CrossRef] | [PubMed]
 
McHugh  RK;  Barlow  DH:  The dissemination and implementation of evidence-based psychological treatments: a review of current efforts.  Am Psychol 2010; 65:73–84
[CrossRef] | [PubMed]
 
Unützer  J;  Katon  W;  Callahan  CM;  Williams  JW  Jr;  Hunkeler  E;  Harpole  L;  Hoffing  M;  Della Penna  RD;  Noël  PH;  Lin  EH;  Areán  PA;  Hegel  MT;  Tang  L;  Belin  TR;  Oishi  S;  Langston  C;IMPACT Investigators (Improving Mood-Promoting Access to Collaborative Treatment):  Collaborative care management of late-life depression in the primary care setting: a randomized controlled trial.  JAMA 2002; 288:2836–2845
[CrossRef] | [PubMed]
 
Simon  GE;  Ludman  EJ;  Tutty  S;  Operskalski  B;  Von Korff  M:  Telephone psychotherapy and telephone care management for primary care patients starting antidepressant treatment: a randomized controlled trial.  JAMA 2004; 292:935–942
[CrossRef] | [PubMed]
 
Mohr  DC;  Vella  L;  Hart  S;  Heckman  T;  Simon  G:  The effect of telephone-administered psychotherapy on symptoms of depression and attrition: a meta-analysis.  Clin Psychol (New York) 2008; 15:243–253
[PubMed]
 
Ruskin  P;  Silver-Aylaian  M;  Kling  M;  Reed  S;  Bradham  D;  Hebel  J;  Barrett  D;  Knowles  F  3rd;  Hauser  P:  Treatment outcomes in depression: comparison of remote treatment through telepsychiatry to in-person treatment.  Am J Psychiatry 2004; 161:1471–1476
[CrossRef] | [PubMed]
 
Mohr  DC;  Ho  J;  Duffecy  J;  Reifler  D;  Sokol  L;  Burns  MN;  Jin  L;  Siddique  J:  Effect of telephone-administered vs face-to-face cognitive behavioral therapy on adherence to therapy and depression outcomes among primary care patients: a randomized trial.  JAMA 2012; 307:2278–2285
[CrossRef] | [PubMed]
 
References Container
+

References

Fortney  JC;  Pyne  JM;  Mouden  SB;  Mittal  D;  Hudson  TJ;  Schroeder  GW;  Williams  DK;  Bynum  CA;  Mattox  R;  Rost  KM:  Practice-based versus telemedicine-based collaborative care for depression in rural federally qualified health centers: a pragmatic randomized comparative effectiveness trial.  Am J Psychiatry 2013; 170:414–425
 
Bower  P;  Gilbody  S;  Richards  D;  Fletcher  J;  Sutton  A:  Collaborative care for depression in primary care: making sense of a complex intervention: systematic review and meta-regression.  Br J Psychiatry 2006; 189:484–493
[CrossRef] | [PubMed]
 
Katon  W;  Unützer  J;  Wells  K;  Jones  L:  Collaborative depression care: history, evolution, and ways to enhance dissemination and sustainability.  Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2010; 32:456–464
[CrossRef] | [PubMed]
 
Katon  W;  Von Korff  M;  Lin  E;  Walker  E;  Simon  GE;  Bush  T;  Robinson  P;  Russo  J:  Collaborative management to achieve treatment guidelines: impact on depression in primary care.  JAMA 1995; 273:1026–1031
[CrossRef] | [PubMed]
 
Miranda  J;  Duan  N;  Sherbourne  C;  Schoenbaum  M;  Lagomasino  I;  Jackson-Triche  M;  Wells  KB:  Improving care for minorities: can quality improvement interventions improve care and outcomes for depressed minorities? Results of a randomized controlled trial.  Health Serv Res 2003; 38:613–630
[CrossRef] | [PubMed]
 
Araya  R;  Rojas  G;  Fritsch  R;  Gaete  J;  Rojas  M;  Simon  G;  Peters  TJ:  Treating depression in primary care in low-income women in Santiago, Chile: a randomised controlled trial.  Lancet 2003; 361:995–1000
[CrossRef] | [PubMed]
 
Patel  V;  Weiss  HA;  Chowdhary  N;  Naik  S;  Pednekar  S;  Chatterjee  S;  De Silva  MJ;  Bhat  B;  Araya  R;  King  M;  Simon  G;  Verdeli  H;  Kirkwood  BR:  Effectiveness of an intervention led by lay health counsellors for depressive and anxiety disorders in primary care in Goa, India (MANAS): a cluster randomised controlled trial.  Lancet 2010; 376:2086–2095
[CrossRef] | [PubMed]
 
McHugh  RK;  Barlow  DH:  The dissemination and implementation of evidence-based psychological treatments: a review of current efforts.  Am Psychol 2010; 65:73–84
[CrossRef] | [PubMed]
 
Unützer  J;  Katon  W;  Callahan  CM;  Williams  JW  Jr;  Hunkeler  E;  Harpole  L;  Hoffing  M;  Della Penna  RD;  Noël  PH;  Lin  EH;  Areán  PA;  Hegel  MT;  Tang  L;  Belin  TR;  Oishi  S;  Langston  C;IMPACT Investigators (Improving Mood-Promoting Access to Collaborative Treatment):  Collaborative care management of late-life depression in the primary care setting: a randomized controlled trial.  JAMA 2002; 288:2836–2845
[CrossRef] | [PubMed]
 
Simon  GE;  Ludman  EJ;  Tutty  S;  Operskalski  B;  Von Korff  M:  Telephone psychotherapy and telephone care management for primary care patients starting antidepressant treatment: a randomized controlled trial.  JAMA 2004; 292:935–942
[CrossRef] | [PubMed]
 
Mohr  DC;  Vella  L;  Hart  S;  Heckman  T;  Simon  G:  The effect of telephone-administered psychotherapy on symptoms of depression and attrition: a meta-analysis.  Clin Psychol (New York) 2008; 15:243–253
[PubMed]
 
Ruskin  P;  Silver-Aylaian  M;  Kling  M;  Reed  S;  Bradham  D;  Hebel  J;  Barrett  D;  Knowles  F  3rd;  Hauser  P:  Treatment outcomes in depression: comparison of remote treatment through telepsychiatry to in-person treatment.  Am J Psychiatry 2004; 161:1471–1476
[CrossRef] | [PubMed]
 
Mohr  DC;  Ho  J;  Duffecy  J;  Reifler  D;  Sokol  L;  Burns  MN;  Jin  L;  Siddique  J:  Effect of telephone-administered vs face-to-face cognitive behavioral therapy on adherence to therapy and depression outcomes among primary care patients: a randomized trial.  JAMA 2012; 307:2278–2285
[CrossRef] | [PubMed]
 
References Container
+
+

CME Activity

There is currently no quiz available for this resource. Please click here to go to the CME page to find another.
Submit a Comments
Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discertion of APA editorial staff.

* = Required Field
(if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
Example: John Doe



Web of Science® Times Cited: 3

Related Content
Books
Gabbard's Treatments of Psychiatric Disorders, 4th Edition > Chapter 22.  >
Gabbard's Treatments of Psychiatric Disorders, 4th Edition > Chapter 22.  >
Gabbard's Treatments of Psychiatric Disorders, 4th Edition > Chapter 22.  >
Gabbard's Treatments of Psychiatric Disorders, 4th Edition > Chapter 22.  >
Gabbard's Treatments of Psychiatric Disorders, 4th Edition > Chapter 22.  >
Topic Collections
Psychiatric News
Read more at Psychiatric News >>
PubMed Articles
Neuroimaging in Alcohol and Drug Dependence. Curr Behav Neurosci Rep 2014;1(1):45-54.