Browsing by Author "Mendel, Peter"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Implementing measurement-based care (iMBC) for depression in community mental health: a dynamic cluster randomized trial study protocol
    (Springer (Biomed Central Ltd.), 2015) Lewis, Cara C.; Scott, Kelli; Marti, C. Nathan; Marriott, Brigid R.; Kroenke, Kurt; Putz, John W.; Mendel, Peter; Rutkowski, David; Department of Medicine, IU School of Medicine
    BACKGROUND: Measurement-based care is an evidence-based practice for depression that efficiently identifies treatment non-responders and those who might otherwise deteriorate [1]. However, measurement-based care is underutilized in community mental health with data suggesting fewer than 20 % of behavioral health providers using this practice to inform treatment. It remains unclear whether standardized or tailored approaches to implementation are needed to optimize measurement-based care fidelity and penetration. Moreover, there is some suggestion that prospectively tailored interventions that are designed to fit the dynamic context may optimize public health impact, though no randomized trials have yet tested this notion [2]. This study will address the following three aims: (1) To compare the effect of standardized versus tailored MBC implementation on clinician-level and client-level outcomes; (2) To identify contextual mediators of MBC fidelity; and (3) To explore the impact of MBC fidelity on client outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a dynamic cluster randomized trial of standardized versus tailored measurement-based care implementation in Centerstone, the largest provider of community-based mental health services in the USA. This prospective, mixed methods implementation-effectiveness hybrid design allows for evaluation of the two conditions on both clinician-level (e.g., MBC fidelity) and client-level (depression symptom change) outcomes. Central to this investigation is the focus on identifying contextual factors (e.g., attitudes, resources, process, etc.) that mediate MBC fidelity and optimize client outcomes. DISCUSSION: This study will contribute generalizable and practical strategies for implementing systematic symptom monitoring to inform and enhance behavioral healthcare. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02266134 .
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Standardized Versus Tailored Implementation of Measurement-Based Care for Depression in Community Mental Health Clinics
    (American Psychiatric Association, 2022) Lewis, Cara C.; Marti, C. Nathan; Scott, Kelli; Walker, Madison R.; Boyd, Meredith; Puspitasari, Ajeng; Mendel, Peter; Kroenke, Kurt; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Objective: Measurement-based care (MBC) is an evidence-based practice that is rarely integrated into psychotherapy. The authors sought to determine whether tailored MBC implementation can improve clinician fidelity and depression outcomes compared with standardized implementation. Methods: This cluster-randomized trial enrolled 12 community behavioral health clinics to receive 5 months of implementation support. Clinics randomized to the standardized implementation received electronic health record data captured with the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), a needs assessment, clinical training, guidelines, and group consultation in MBC fidelity. Tailored implementation support included these strategies, but the training content was tailored to clinics’ barriers to MBC, and group consultation centered on overcoming these barriers. Clinicians (N=83, tailored; N=71, standardized) delivering individual psychotherapy to 4,025 adults participated. Adult patients (N=87, tailored; N=141, standardized) contributed data for depression outcome analyses. Results: The odds of PHQ-9 completion were lower in the tailored group at baseline (odds ratio [OR]=0.28, 95% CI=0.08–0.96) but greater at 5 months (OR=3.39, 95% CI=1.00–11.48). The two implementation groups did not differ in full MBC fidelity. PHQ-9 scores decreased significantly from baseline (mean±SD=17.6±4.4) to 12 weeks (mean=12.6±5.9) (p<0.001), but neither implementation group nor MBC fidelity significantly predicted PHQ-9 scores at week 12. Conclusions: Tailored MBC implementation outperformed standardized implementation with respect to PHQ-9 completion, but discussion of PHQ-9 scores in clinician-patient sessions remained suboptimal. MBC fidelity did not predict week-12 depression severity. MBC can critically inform collaborative adjustments to session or treatment plans, but more strategic system-level implementation support or longer implementation periods may be needed.