乡村性和地区剥夺指数对抑郁症协同护理结果的影响

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Samuel T. Savitz PhD, Alanna M. Chamberlain PhD, Ruoxiang Jiang BSc, Sheharyar Sarwar DO, Mark D. Williams MD
{"title":"乡村性和地区剥夺指数对抑郁症协同护理结果的影响","authors":"Samuel T. Savitz PhD,&nbsp;Alanna M. Chamberlain PhD,&nbsp;Ruoxiang Jiang BSc,&nbsp;Sheharyar Sarwar DO,&nbsp;Mark D. Williams MD","doi":"10.1111/jrh.70044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>The Collaborative care model (CoCM) is the leading model for integrating behavioral health into primary care for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). However, CoCM requires engagement and ongoing participation. We aimed to assess whether two area-based measures, the area-deprivation index (ADI) and rurality, were associated with enrollment, participation, and outcomes with CoCM.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This was an observational analysis of Mayo Clinic patients eligible for CoCM: adults aged ≥18 years, empaneled in primary care, and with a PHQ-9 of ≥10. We operationalized ADI as quintiles with Q1 being least deprived and Q5 being most deprived and rurality using RUCA codes with two categories: urban and rural. We evaluated enrollment in CoCM, drop out defined by leaving the program early, the count and type of contacts with the care coordinator, and clinical improvement measured using the PHQ-9.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Findings</h3>\n \n <p>We identified 54,030 individuals with 16,532 (30.6%) residing in rural areas and 11,122 (20.6%) residing in the most deprived ADI quintile (Q5). Living in a rural area was associated with lower enrollment in CoCM (–2.3 percentage points [95% confidence interval (CI): –2.5, 2.2]), longer length in CoCM (18.6 days [95% CI: 5.7, 31.5]), more contacts with the care coordinator (1.1 contacts [95% CI: 0.2, 2.0]), and worse response and remission. In contrast, ADI Q5 was only associated with worse response and remission.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Rurality was associated with lower enrollment, greater engagement, and worse clinical outcomes. More work may be needed to address enrollment barriers for individuals living in rural areas to improve clinical outcomes.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50060,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Rural Health","volume":"41 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of rurality and the area deprivation index on outcomes of collaborative care for depression\",\"authors\":\"Samuel T. Savitz PhD,&nbsp;Alanna M. Chamberlain PhD,&nbsp;Ruoxiang Jiang BSc,&nbsp;Sheharyar Sarwar DO,&nbsp;Mark D. Williams MD\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jrh.70044\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Purpose</h3>\\n \\n <p>The Collaborative care model (CoCM) is the leading model for integrating behavioral health into primary care for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). However, CoCM requires engagement and ongoing participation. We aimed to assess whether two area-based measures, the area-deprivation index (ADI) and rurality, were associated with enrollment, participation, and outcomes with CoCM.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>This was an observational analysis of Mayo Clinic patients eligible for CoCM: adults aged ≥18 years, empaneled in primary care, and with a PHQ-9 of ≥10. We operationalized ADI as quintiles with Q1 being least deprived and Q5 being most deprived and rurality using RUCA codes with two categories: urban and rural. We evaluated enrollment in CoCM, drop out defined by leaving the program early, the count and type of contacts with the care coordinator, and clinical improvement measured using the PHQ-9.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Findings</h3>\\n \\n <p>We identified 54,030 individuals with 16,532 (30.6%) residing in rural areas and 11,122 (20.6%) residing in the most deprived ADI quintile (Q5). Living in a rural area was associated with lower enrollment in CoCM (–2.3 percentage points [95% confidence interval (CI): –2.5, 2.2]), longer length in CoCM (18.6 days [95% CI: 5.7, 31.5]), more contacts with the care coordinator (1.1 contacts [95% CI: 0.2, 2.0]), and worse response and remission. In contrast, ADI Q5 was only associated with worse response and remission.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Rurality was associated with lower enrollment, greater engagement, and worse clinical outcomes. More work may be needed to address enrollment barriers for individuals living in rural areas to improve clinical outcomes.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50060,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Rural Health\",\"volume\":\"41 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Rural Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jrh.70044\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Rural Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jrh.70044","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的协作护理模式(CoCM)是将行为健康纳入重度抑郁障碍(MDD)患者初级保健的主要模式。然而,CoCM需要参与和持续的参与。我们的目的是评估两个基于区域的指标,即区域剥夺指数(ADI)和乡村性,是否与CoCM的入组、参与和结果相关。方法:对符合CoCM条件的梅奥诊所患者进行观察性分析:年龄≥18岁,纳入初级保健,PHQ-9≥10的成年人。我们将ADI按五分位数进行操作,其中Q1是最不贫困的,Q5是最贫困的,农村使用RUCA代码分为两类:城市和农村。我们评估了CoCM的入组情况、提前退出定义、与护理协调员接触的数量和类型,以及使用PHQ-9测量的临床改善。我们确定了54,030人,其中16,532人(30.6%)居住在农村地区,11,122人(20.6%)居住在最贫困的ADI五分位数(Q5)。生活在农村地区的患者CoCM入组率较低(-2.3个百分点[95%可信区间(CI): -2.5, 2.2]), CoCM持续时间较长(18.6天[95% CI: 5.7, 31.5]),与护理协调员接触较多(1.1次接触[95% CI: 0.2, 2.0]),反应和缓解较差。相比之下,ADI Q5仅与较差的反应和缓解相关。结论:乡村性与较低的入组率、较高的参与度和较差的临床结果相关。可能需要做更多的工作来解决生活在农村地区的个体的入学障碍,以改善临床结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Impact of rurality and the area deprivation index on outcomes of collaborative care for depression

Purpose

The Collaborative care model (CoCM) is the leading model for integrating behavioral health into primary care for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). However, CoCM requires engagement and ongoing participation. We aimed to assess whether two area-based measures, the area-deprivation index (ADI) and rurality, were associated with enrollment, participation, and outcomes with CoCM.

Methods

This was an observational analysis of Mayo Clinic patients eligible for CoCM: adults aged ≥18 years, empaneled in primary care, and with a PHQ-9 of ≥10. We operationalized ADI as quintiles with Q1 being least deprived and Q5 being most deprived and rurality using RUCA codes with two categories: urban and rural. We evaluated enrollment in CoCM, drop out defined by leaving the program early, the count and type of contacts with the care coordinator, and clinical improvement measured using the PHQ-9.

Findings

We identified 54,030 individuals with 16,532 (30.6%) residing in rural areas and 11,122 (20.6%) residing in the most deprived ADI quintile (Q5). Living in a rural area was associated with lower enrollment in CoCM (–2.3 percentage points [95% confidence interval (CI): –2.5, 2.2]), longer length in CoCM (18.6 days [95% CI: 5.7, 31.5]), more contacts with the care coordinator (1.1 contacts [95% CI: 0.2, 2.0]), and worse response and remission. In contrast, ADI Q5 was only associated with worse response and remission.

Conclusions

Rurality was associated with lower enrollment, greater engagement, and worse clinical outcomes. More work may be needed to address enrollment barriers for individuals living in rural areas to improve clinical outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Rural Health
Journal of Rural Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
6.10%
发文量
86
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Rural Health, a quarterly journal published by the NRHA, offers a variety of original research relevant and important to rural health. Some examples include evaluations, case studies, and analyses related to health status and behavior, as well as to health work force, policy and access issues. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies are welcome. Highest priority is given to manuscripts that reflect scholarly quality, demonstrate methodological rigor, and emphasize practical implications. The journal also publishes articles with an international rural health perspective, commentaries, book reviews and letters.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信