Evaluation of a Mental Health Physician Support Program in Nova Scotia
1 other identifier
interventional
285
1 country
1
Brief Summary
The aim of this study is to test the program's effectiveness in a primary care setting in reducing stigma among medical personnel, increasing the comfort level of physicians and staff in providing care to those living with mental illness, and in improving client well-being and mental health.
Trial Health
Trial Health Score
Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach
participants targeted
Target at P75+ for not_applicable major-depressive-disorder
Started Nov 2013
1 active site
Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.
Trial Relationships
Click on a node to explore related trials.
Study Timeline
Key milestones and dates
First Submitted
Initial submission to the registry
October 21, 2013
CompletedStudy Start
First participant enrolled
November 1, 2013
CompletedFirst Posted
Study publicly available on registry
November 5, 2013
CompletedPrimary Completion
Last participant's last visit for primary outcome
December 1, 2015
CompletedStudy Completion
Last participant's last visit for all outcomes
December 1, 2015
CompletedResults Posted
Study results publicly available
June 26, 2017
CompletedOctober 14, 2021
September 1, 2021
2.1 years
October 21, 2013
February 1, 2017
September 20, 2021
Conditions
Keywords
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcomes (2)
Depression Severity (Change in Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) Score From Baseline
The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) covers nine symptom-based Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) criteria for major depressive disorder. Scores range from 0-27, with higher scores indicating more severe depression severity. We compared between-group mean differences of PHQ-9 scores during follow-up, assessed as a group-by-time interaction. We used a multi-level mixed model analysis: physicians clustered within practices, patients clustered within their corresponding physicians, and longitudinal PHQ-9 ratings clustered within patients. The four follow-up time points were represented by indicator variables. The effect of the intervention was measured as an intervention by time interaction, and the time-by-group interaction was assessed using a likelihood ratio test.
Baseline, 1, 2, 3, and 6 months
Between Group Changes in Total Score on the Opening Minds Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC)
The Opening Minds Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC) is a 15 item validated scale that also captures three main dimensions of stigma; negative attitudes, health professionals' own willingness to disclose/seek help for a mental illness, and preference for greater social distance. Items are rated on a 5-point scale: from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Total scores can range from 15 to 75 for the overall total score, 6 to 30, 4-29, 5-25 for sub-scales respectively. Total scores are averaged to result in mean scores range from 1 to 5 with lower scores indicating less stigma. This scale has been widely validated and used in evaluations of anti-stigma interventions in Canada. The analysis was conducted using a multi-level mixed model in which physicians were clustered within practices and stigma ratings were clustered within physicians (one or two observations per physician). The effect of the intervention was measured in this analysis as an intervention by time interaction.
Baseline and at 6 months
Secondary Outcomes (1)
Between Group Changes in Occupational Functioning From Baseline to 6 Months
Baseline, 1, 2, 3, and 6 months
Other Outcomes (7)
Between Group Change at 6 Months From Baseline in Physician Confidence and Comfort in Managing Mental Illness
Baseline and 6 months
Between Group Change in Physician Confidence and Comfort With Non-program Specific Tools and Skills
Baseline and 6 months
Between Group Change in Physician Confidence and Comfort With Program Specific Tools and Skills
Baseline and 6 months
- +4 more other outcomes
Study Arms (4)
Mental Health PSP: Physicians
EXPERIMENTALPhysicians training in Adult Mental Health Practice Support Program
Treatment as Usual: Physicians
ACTIVE COMPARATORThose administering treatment as usual for depression
Mental Health PSP: Patients
EXPERIMENTALThose belonging to a physician who has completed the Adult Mental Health Practice Support Program training.
Treatment as Usual: Patients
ACTIVE COMPARATORThose receiving treatment as usual for depression
Interventions
1. training and (2) practice support. * Three half day workshop sessions over a 24 week period. * Practice support: 3 evidence based Supported Self Management tools (Cognitive Behavioral Interpersonal Skills Manual,Bounceback program, Antidepressant Skills Workbook), and Practice support coordinator provides guidance to incorporate newly acquired tools, skills, and processes
Physicians manage patients with depression as usual
Eligibility Criteria
You may qualify if:
- Depression defined by PHQ-9 score of \> 10.
- \> 18 years old.
- Able to read and speak English.
- Sufficiently intact cognitive functioning (physician judgement).
- Free of urgent or emergent medical or psychiatric issues e.g. unstable cardiovascular disease, suicidal ideation.
You may not qualify if:
- Not currently under treatment for depression either with an antidepressant medication or psychotherapy.
Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.
Sponsors & Collaborators
Study Sites (1)
Dalhousie University Department of Psychiatry
Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H2E2, Canada
Related Publications (1)
Lauria-Horner B, Beaulieu T, Knaak S, Weinerman R, Campbell H, Patten S. Controlled trial of the impact of a BC adult mental health practice support program (AMHPSP) on primary health care professionals' management of depression. BMC Fam Pract. 2018 Nov 28;19(1):183. doi: 10.1186/s12875-018-0862-y.
PMID: 30486799DERIVED
MeSH Terms
Conditions
Interventions
Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Limitations and Caveats
Challenges in physician sample: 75% completed pre-post OMS-HC scale Physicians experienced challenges identifying study patients leading to small number of patients.
Results Point of Contact
- Title
- Dr. Bianca Lauria-Horner
- Organization
- Dalhousie University, Department of Psychiatry
Study Officials
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Bianca A Lauria-Horner, MD
Associate Professor Dalhousie University Department of Psychiatry
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Scott Patten, FRCP(C), PhD
Professor, Departments of Community Health Sciences and Psychiatry, Calgary, Alberta
Publication Agreements
- PI is Sponsor Employee
- No
- Restrictive Agreement
- No
Study Design
- Study Type
- interventional
- Phase
- not applicable
- Allocation
- RANDOMIZED
- Masking
- DOUBLE
- Who Masked
- PARTICIPANT, OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
- Purpose
- HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH
- Intervention Model
- PARALLEL
- Sponsor Type
- OTHER
- Responsible Party
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
- PI Title
- Primary Mental Healthcare Education Leader
Study Record Dates
First Submitted
October 21, 2013
First Posted
November 5, 2013
Study Start
November 1, 2013
Primary Completion
December 1, 2015
Study Completion
December 1, 2015
Last Updated
October 14, 2021
Results First Posted
June 26, 2017
Record last verified: 2021-09
Data Sharing
- IPD Sharing
- Will share
- Shared Documents
- STUDY PROTOCOL, ICF
- Time Frame
- Available as of August 21/2017 till December 31/2017
- Access Criteria
- Contact: Bianca Lauria-Horner hornerb@dal.ca
Results will be distributed through publications in academic journals and presented at upcoming conferences, study sponsors and contributors: i.e. the Mental Health Commission of Canada, the Nova Scotia Department of Health and Wellness, Dalhousie University, the University of Calgary, Doctors of Nova Scotia, study participants, etc. Study Protocol, SAP, and Informed Consent will be shared. However when SAP is checked below in IPD sharing field, it will not allow to be saved (check-mark in SAP does not remain when save button is clicked). De-identified patient data will not be shared as we made a commitment to physicians that only the PI would have access to this information, even though de-identified, some were concerned that patients could still be identified.