Background

Psychiatric comorbidities may complicate depression treatment by being associated with increased role impairments. However, depression symptom severity might account for these associations. Understanding the independent associations of depression severity and comorbidity with impairments could help in treatment planning. This is especially true for depressed Veterans, who have high psychiatric comorbidity rates.

Methods

2,610 Veterans beginning major depression treatment at the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) were administered a baseline self-report survey that screened for diverse psychiatric comorbidities and assessed depression severity and role impairments. Logistic and generalized linear regression models estimated univariable and multivariable associations of depression severity and comorbidities with impairments. Population attributable risk proportions (PARPs) estimated the relative importance of depression severity and comorbidities in accounting for role impairments.

Results

Nearly all patients (97.8%) screened positive for at least one comorbidity and half (49.8%) for 4+ comorbidities. The most common positive screens were for generalized anxiety disorder (80.2%), posttraumatic stress disorder (77.9%), and panic/phobia (77.4%). Depression severity and comorbidities were significantly and additively associated with impairments in multivariable models. Associations were attenuated much less for depression severity than for comorbidities in multivariable versus univariable models. PARPs indicated that 15-60% of role impairments were attributable to depression severity and 5-32% to comorbidities.

Limitations

The screening scales could have over-estimated comorbidity prevalence. The cross-sectional observational design cannot determine either temporal or causal priorities.

Conclusions

Although positive screens for psychiatric comorbidity are pervasive among depressed VHA patients, depression severity accounts for most of the associations of these comorbidities with role impairments.

Introduction

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) supports the nation's largest primary care-mental health integration (PC-MHI) collaborative care model to increase treatment of mild to moderate common mental disorders in primary care (PC) and refer more severe-complex cases to specialty mental health (SMH) settings. It is unclear how this treatment assignment works in practice.

Methods

Patients (n = 2610) who sought incident episode VHA treatment for depression completed a baseline self-report questionnaire about depression severity-complexity. Administrative data were used to determine settings and types of treatment during the next 30 days.

Results

Thirty-four percent (34.2%) of depressed patients received treatment in PC settings, 65.8% in SMH settings. PC patients had less severe and fewer comorbid depressive episodes. Patients with lowest severity and/or complexity were most likely to receive PC antidepressant medication treatment; those with highest severity and/or complexity were most likely to receive combined treatment in SMH settings. Assignment of patients across settings and types of treatment was stronger than found in previous civilian studies but less pronounced than expected (cross-validated AUC = 0.50-0.68).

Discussion

By expanding access to evidence-based treatments, VHA's PC-MHI increases consistency of treatment assignment. Reasons for assignment being less pronounced than expected and implications for treatment response will require continued study.

Background

Physician responsiveness to patient preferences for depression treatment may improve treatment adherence and clinical outcomes.

Objective

To examine associations of patient treatment preferences with types of depression treatment received and treatment adherence among Veterans initiating depression treatment.

Design

Patient self-report surveys at treatment initiation linked to medical records.

Setting

Veterans Health Administration (VA) clinics nationally, 2018-2020.

Participants

A total of 2582 patients (76.7% male, mean age 48.7 years, 62.3% Non-Hispanic White) MAIN MEASURES: Patient self-reported preferences for medication and psychotherapy on 0-10 self-anchoring visual analog scales (0="completely unwilling"; 10="completely willing"). Treatment receipt and adherence (refilling medications; attending 3+ psychotherapy sessions) over 3 months. Logistic regression models controlled for socio-demographics and geographic variables.

Key results

More patients reported strong preferences (10/10) for psychotherapy than medication (51.2% versus 36.7%, McNemar χ²₁=175.3, p<0.001). A total of 32.1% of patients who preferred (7-10/10) medication and 21.8% who preferred psychotherapy did not receive these treatments. Patients who strongly preferred medication were substantially more likely to receive medication than those who had strong negative preferences (odds ratios [OR]=17.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]=12.5-24.5). Compared with patients who had strong negative psychotherapy preferences, those with strong psychotherapy preferences were about twice as likely to receive psychotherapy (OR=1.9; 95% CI=1.0-3.5). Patients who strongly preferred psychotherapy were more likely to adhere to psychotherapy than those with strong negative preferences (OR=3.3; 95% CI=1.4-7.4). Treatment preferences were not associated with medication or combined treatment adherence. Patients in primary care settings had lower odds of receiving (but not adhering to) psychotherapy than patients in specialty mental health settings. Depression severity was not associated with treatment receipt or adherence.

Conclusions

Mismatches between treatment preferences and treatment type received were common and associated with worse treatment adherence for psychotherapy. Future research could examine ways to decrease mismatch between patient preferences and treatments received and potential effects on patient outcomes.