How do care providers evaluate collaboration? - qualitative process evaluation of a cluster-randomized controlled trial of collaborative and stepped care for patients with mental disorders

Kerstin Maehder, Silke Werner, Angelika Weigel, Bernd Löwe, Daniela Heddaeus, Martin Härter, Olaf von dem Knesebeck, Kerstin Maehder, Silke Werner, Angelika Weigel, Bernd Löwe, Daniela Heddaeus, Martin Härter, Olaf von dem Knesebeck

Abstract

Background: Collaborative and stepped care (CSC) models are recommended for mental disorders. Their successful implementation depends on effective collaboration between involved care providers from primary and specialist care. To gain insights into the collaboration experiences of care providers in CSC against the backdrop of usual mental health care, a qualitative process evaluation was realized as part of a cluster-randomized controlled trial (COMET) of a collaborative and stepped care model in Hamburg (Germany).

Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with N = 24 care providers from primary and specialist care (outpatient psychotherapists and psychiatrists, inpatient/ day clinic mental health providers) within and outside of COMET at the trial's beginning and 12 months later. Interviews were analyzed applying a qualitative structuring content analysis approach, combining deductive and inductive category development.

Results: Usual mental health care was considered deficient in resources, with collaboration being scarce and mainly taking place in small informal networks. Within the COMET trial, quicker referral paths were welcomed, as were quarterly COMET network meetings which provided room for exchange and fostered mutual understanding. Yet, also in COMET, collaboration remained difficult due to communication problems, the unfavorable regional distribution of the COMET care providers and interprofessional discrepancies regarding each profession's role, competencies and mutual esteem. Ideas for improvement included more localized networks, the inclusion of further professions and the overall amelioration of mental health care regarding resources and remuneration, especially for collaborative activities.

Conclusions: The process evaluation of the COMET trial revealed the benefits of creating room for interprofessional encounter to foster collaborative care. Despite the benefits of faster patient referrals, the COMET network did not fulfill all care providers' prior expectations. A focus should be set on interprofessional competencies, mutual perception and role clarification, as these have been revealed as significant barriers to collaboration within CSC models such as COMET.

Trial registration: The COMET trial (Collaborative and Stepped Care in Mental Health by Overcoming Treatment Sector Barriers) has been registered on July 24, 2017 under the trial registration number NCT03226743 .

Keywords: Collaborative care; Implementation; Mental health; Process evaluation; Qualitative study; Randomized-controlled trial; Stepped care.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Main categories of the process evaluation on collaboration in the COMET trial. COMET Collaborative and Stepped Care in Mental Health by Overcoming Treatment Sector Barriers (trial name), CSC Collaborative and Stepped Care (intervention group within COMET)

References

    1. Steel Z, Marnane C, Iranpour C, Chey T, Jackson JW, Patel V, Silove D. The global prevalence of common mental disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis 1980-2013. Int J Epidemiol. 2014;43(2):476–493. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyu038.
    1. Patel V, Chisholm D, Parikh R, Charlson FJ, Degenhardt L, Dua T, Ferrari AJ, Hyman S, Laxminarayan R, Levin C, Lund C, Medina Mora ME, Petersen I, Scott J, Shidhaye R, Vijayakumar L, Thornicroft G, Whiteford H. Addressing the burden of mental, neurological, and substance use disorders: key messages from disease control priorities, 3rd edition. Lancet. 2016;387(10028):1672–1685. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00390-6.
    1. Konnopka A, König HH. Economic burden of anxiety disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PharmacoEconomics. 2020;38(1):25–37. doi: 10.1007/s40273-019-00849-7.
    1. König H, König HH, Konnopka A. The excess costs of depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2019;29:e30. doi: 10.1017/S2045796019000180.
    1. Jacobi F, Hofler M, Siegert J, Mack S, Gerschler A, Scholl L, et al. Twelve-month prevalence, comorbidity and correlates of mental disorders in Germany: the mental health module of the German health interview and examination survey for adults (DEGS1-MH) Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2014;23(3):304–319. doi: 10.1002/mpr.1439.
    1. Larisch A, Heuft G, Engbrink S, Brähler E, Herzog W, Kruse J. Behandlung psychischer und psychosomatischer Beschwerden - Inanspruchnahme, Erwartungen und Kenntnisse der Allgemeinbevölkerung in Deutschland. [treatment of mental and psychosomatic complaints - how the general population in Germany gets treatment, and what it expects and knows about treatment alternatives] Z Psychosom Med Psychother. 2013;59(2):153–169. doi: 10.13109/zptm.2013.59.2.153.
    1. DGPPN, BÄK, KBV, AWMF (eds.). S3-guideline/national guideline unipolar depression – long version, 2nd ed., version 5. 2015. . Accessed 3 Oct 2020.
    1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Common mental health problems: identification and pathways to care (Clinical guideline [CG123]). London: NICE. 2011. . Accessed 3 Oct 2020.
    1. Olde Hartman TCBA, Molenaar AO, van den Bentz BD, van der Horst HE, Arnold IA, Burgers JS, Tj W, Woutersen-Koch H. NHG guideline on medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) Huisarts Wet. 2013;56(5):222–230.
    1. American Psychiatric Association & Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy. Dissemination of integrated care within adult primary care settings - The Collaborative Care Model. 2016. . Accessed 3 Oct 2020.
    1. Richards DA, Bower P, Pagel C, Weaver A, Utley M, Cape J, Pilling S, Lovell K, Gilbody S, Leibowitz J, Owens L, Paxton R, Hennessy S, Simpson A, Gallivan S, Tomson D, Vasilakis C. Delivering stepped care: an analysis of implementation in routine practice. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):3. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-3.
    1. Sighinolfi C, Nespeca C, Menchetti M, Levantesi P, Belvederi Murri M, Berardi D. Collaborative care for depression in European countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Psychosom Res. 2014;77(4):247–263. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2014.08.006.
    1. Archer J, Bower P, Gilbody S, Lovell K, Richards D, Gask L, et al. Collaborative care for depression and anxiety problems. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;10:Cd006525.
    1. Muntingh AD, van der Feltz-Cornelis CM, van Marwijk HW, Spinhoven P, van Balkom AJ. Collaborative care for anxiety disorders in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Fam Pract. 2016;17(1):62. doi: 10.1186/s12875-016-0466-3.
    1. Roca M, Gili M, Garcia-Garcia M, Salva J, Vives M, Garcia Campayo J, Comas A. Prevalence and comorbidity of common mental disorders in primary care. J Affect Dis. 2009;119(1–3):52–58. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2009.03.014.
    1. Heddaeus D, Dirmaier J, Brettschneider C, Daubmann A, Grochtdreis T, von dem Knesebeck O, König HH, Löwe B, Maehder K, Porzelt S, Rosenkranz M, Schäfer I, Scherer M, Schulte B, Wegscheider K, Weigel A, Werner S, Zimmermann T, Härter M. Study protocol for the COMET study: a cluster-randomised, prospective, parallel-group, superiority trial to compare the effectiveness of a collaborative and stepped care model versus treatment as usual in patients with mental disorders in primary care. BMJ Open. 2019;9(11):e032408. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032408.
    1. Curran GM, Sullivan G, Mendel P, Craske MG, Sherbourne CD, Stein MB, et al. Implementation of the CALM intervention for anxiety disorders: a qualitative study. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1). 10.1186/1748-5908-7-14.
    1. Franx G, Oud M, de Lange J, Wensing M, Grol R. Implementing a stepped-care approach in primary care: results of a qualitative study. Implement Sci. 2012;7:14. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-8.
    1. Makowski AC, Mnich EE, Kofahl C, von dem Knesebeck O. psychenet - Hamburger Netz psychische Gesundheit: Ergebnisse der Prozessevaluation. [psychenet - Hamburg Network for Mental Health: Results of the Process Evaluation] Psychiatr Prax. 2015;42(Suppl 1):S65–S69.
    1. Overbeck G, Davidsen AS, Kousgaard MB. Enablers and barriers to implementing collaborative care for anxiety and depression: a systematic qualitative review. Implement Sci. 2016;11(1):165. doi: 10.1186/s13012-016-0519-y.
    1. Shedden-Mora MC, Kuby A, Tönnies J, Piontek K, Löwe B. Stepped, collaborative, coordinated care for somatic symptom and related disorders (Sofu-net) Z Psychol. 2020;228(2):119–129. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000405.
    1. Wood E, Ohlsen S, Ricketts T. What are the barriers and facilitators to implementing collaborative care for depression? A systematic review. J Affect Dis. 2017;214:26–43. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2017.02.028.
    1. Karam M, Brault I, Van Durme T, Macq J. Comparing interprofessional and interorganizational collaboration in healthcare: a systematic review of the qualitative research. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018;79:70–83. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.11.002.
    1. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):581–629. doi: 10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x.
    1. Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, Moore L, O'Cathain A, Tinati T, Wight D, Baird J. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2015;350(mar19 6):h1258. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h1258.
    1. May CR, Mair F, Finch T, MacFarlane A, Dowrick C, Treweek S, Rapley T, Ballini L, Ong BN, Rogers A, Murray E, Elwyn G, Légaré F, Gunn J, Montori VM. Development of a theory of implementation and integration: normalization process theory. Implement Sci. 2009;4(1):29. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-29.
    1. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–357. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042.
    1. Patton MQ. Qualitative research & evaluation methods: integrating theory and practice. 4. Los Angelese: SAGE Publications; 2015.
    1. von Lüde J. Sozialmonitoring Integrierte Stadtteilentwicklung - Ergebnisbericht 2018. Hamburg: Behörde für Stadtentwicklung und Wohnen der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg; 2018 sozialmonitoring-bericht-2018/ Accessed 16 Nov 2019.
    1. Bundespsychotherapeutenkammer (BPtK – Federal Chamber of Psychotherapists in Germany). Paths to Psychotherapy. 2019. Accessed 16 Nov 2020.
    1. Heddaeus D, Steinmann M, Liebherz S, Härter M, Watzke B. psychenet - Hamburger Netz psychische Gesundheit: Evaluation des Gesundheitsnetzes Depression aus Sicht der teilnehmenden Hausärzte, Psychotherapeuten und Psychiater. [psychenet - The Hamburg network for mental health: Evaluation of the health network depression from the perspective of participating general practitioners, psychotherapists and psychiatrists] Psychiatr Prax. 2015;42(Suppl 1):S54–SS9.
    1. Mayring P. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. 12. Beltz: Weinheim; 2015.
    1. Kuckartz U. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, praxis, Computerunterstützung. 4th ed. Beltz Juventa: Weinheim; 2018.
    1. Lamnek S. Qualitative Sozialforschung. Band 2: Methoden und Techniken. 3rd ed. BeltzPVU: Weinheim; 1995.
    1. Creswell J. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 4. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2013.
    1. Axelsson SB, Axelsson R. From territoriality to altruism in interprofessional collaboration and leadership. J Interprof Care. 2009;23(4):320–330. doi: 10.1080/13561820902921811.
    1. Goldman ML, Smali E, Richkin T, Pincus HA, Chung H. A novel continuum-based framework for translating behavioral health integration to primary care settings. Transl Behav Med. 2020;10(3):580–589. doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibz142.
    1. Supper I, Catala O, Lustman M, Chemla C, Bourgueil Y, Letrilliart L. Interprofessional collaboration in primary health care: a review of facilitators and barriers perceived by involved actors. J Public Health. 2014;37(4):716–727. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdu102.
    1. Maehder K, Löwe B, Härter M, Heddaeus D, von dem Knesebeck O, Weigel A. Psychotherapists' perspectives on collaboration and stepped care in outpatient psychotherapy - a qualitative study. PLoS One. 2020;15(2):e0228748. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228748.
    1. Kaitz JE, Ray S. Psychologist and physician inter-professional collaborative experiences in primary care integration. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2020. 10.1007/s10880-020-09733-5.
    1. Shen N, Sockalingam S, Charow R, Bailey S, Bernier T, Freeland A, Hawa A, Sur D, Wiljer D. Education programs for medical psychiatry collaborative care: a scoping review. Gen Hosp Psychiatr. 2018;55:51–59. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2018.08.009.
    1. Barr N, Vania D, Randall G, Mulvale G. Impact of information and communication technology on interprofessional collaboration for chronic disease management: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2017;22(4):250–257. doi: 10.1177/1355819617714292.
    1. Sordahl J, King IC, Davis K, Tivis R, Smith SC, Fisher A, Willis J, Gordon T, Weppner WG. Interprofessional case conference: impact on learner outcomes. Transl Behav Med. 2018;8(6):927–931. doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibx018.
    1. World Health Organization. Framework for action on interprofessional education and collaborative practice (WHO/HRH/HPN/10.3). Genf: WHO. 2010. Accessed 16 Nov 2020.
    1. Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative (CIHC). A national interprofessional competency framework. Vancouver: CIHC. 2010. Accessed 16 Nov 2020.
    1. Moise N, Shah RN, Essock S, Jones A, Carruthers J, Handley MA, Peccoralo L, Sederer L. Sustainability of collaborative care management for depression in primary care settings with academic affiliations across New York state. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):128. doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0818-6.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe