Search

Objective: To understand potential for multi-sector partnerships among community-based organizations and publicly funded health systems to implement health improvement strategies that advance health equity., Design: Key stakeholder interviewing during HNI planning and early implementation to elicit perceptions of multi-sector partnerships and innovations required for partnerships to achieve system transformation and health equity., Setting: In 2014, the Los Angeles County (LAC) Board of Supervisors approved the Health Neighborhood Initiative (HNI) that aims to: 1) improve coordination of health services for behavioral health clients across safety-net providers within neighborhoods; and 2) address social determinants of health through community-driven, public agency sponsored partnerships with community-based organizations., Participants: Twenty-five semi-structured interviews with 49 leaders from LAC health systems, community-based organizations; and payers., Results: Leaders perceived partnerships within and beyond health systems as transformative in their potential to: improve access, value, and efficiency; align priorities of safety-net systems and communities; and harness the power of communities to impact health. Leaders identified trust as critical to success in partnerships but named lack of time for relationship-building, limitations in service capacity, and questions about sustainability as barriers to trust-building. Leaders described the need for procedural innovations within health systems that would support equitable partnerships including innovations that would increase transparency and normalize information exchange, share agenda-setting and decision-making power with partners, and institutionalize partnering through training and accountability., Conclusions: Leaders described improving procedural justice in public agencies' relationships with communities as key to effective partnering for health equity., Competing Interests: Competing Interests: None declared.

Significance: Prior research suggests that Community Engagement and Planning (CEP) for coalition support compared with Resources for Services (RS) for program technical assistance to implement depression quality improvement programs improves 6- and 12-month client mental-health related quality of life (MHRQL); however, effects for clients with multiple chronic medical conditions (MCC) are unknown., Objective: To explore effectiveness of CEP vs RS in MCC and non-MCC subgroups., Design: Secondary analyses of a cluster-randomized trial., Setting: 93 health care and community-based programs in two neighborhoods., Participants: Of 4,440 clients screened, 1,322 depressed (Patient Health Questionnaire, PHQ8) provided contact information, 1,246 enrolled and 1,018 (548 with ≥3 MCC) completed baseline, 6- or 12-month surveys., Intervention: CEP or RS for implementing depression quality improvement programs., Outcomes and Analyses: Primary: depression (PHQ9 <10), poor MHRQL (Short Form Health Survey, SF-12<40); Secondary: mental wellness, good physical health, behavioral health hospitalization, chronic homelessness risk, work/workloss days, services use at 6 and 12 months. End-point regressions were used to estimate intervention effects on outcomes for subgroups with ≥3 MCC, non-MCC, and intervention-by-MCC interactions (exploratory)., Results: Among MCC clients at 6 months, CEP vs RS lowered likelihoods of depression and poor MHRQL; increased likelihood of mental wellness; reduced work-loss days among employed and likelihoods of ≥4 behavioral-health hospitalization nights and chronic homelessness risk, while increasing faith-based and park community center depression services; and at 12 months, likelihood of good physical health and park community center depression services use (each P<.05). There were no significant interactions or primary outcome effects for non-MCC., Conclusions: CEP was more effective than RS in improving 6-month primary outcomes among depressed MCC clients, without significant interactions., Competing Interests: Competing Interests: None declared.

Objective: Community Partners in Care (CPIC) was a group-randomized study of two approaches to implementing expanded collaborative depression care: Community Engagement and Planning (CEP), a coalition approach, and Resources for Services (RS), a technical assistance approach. Collaborative care networks in both arms involved health care and other agencies in five service sectors. This study examined six- and 12-month outcomes for CPIC participants with serious mental illness., Methods: This secondary analysis focused on low-income CPIC participants from racial-ethnic minority groups with serious mental illness in underresourced Los Angeles communities (N=504). Serious mental illness was defined as self-reported severe depression (≥20 on the Patient Health Questionnaire-8) at baseline or a lifetime history of bipolar disorder or psychosis. Logistic and Poisson regression with multiple imputation and response weights, controlling for covariates, was used to model intervention effects., Results: Among CPIC participants, 50% had serious mental illness. Among those with serious mental illness, CEP relative to RS reduced the likelihood of poor mental health-related quality of life (OR=.62, 95% CI=.41-.95) but not depression (primary outcomes); reduced the likelihood of having homelessness risk factors and behavioral health hospitalizations; increased the likelihood of mental wellness; reduced specialty mental health medication and counseling visits; and increased faith-based depression visits (each p<.05) at six months. There were no statistically significant 12-month effects., Conclusions: Findings suggest that a coalition approach to implementing expanded collaborative depression care, compared with technical assistance to individual programs, may reduce short-term behavioral health hospitalizations and improve mental health-related quality of life and some social outcomes for adults with serious mental illness, although no evidence was found for long-term effects in this subsample.

Objective: The effectiveness of community coalition building and program technical assistance was compared in implementation of collaborative care for depression among health care and community sector clients., Methods: In under-resourced communities, within 93 programs randomly assigned to coalition building (Community Engagement and Planning) or program technical assistance (Resources for Services) models, 1,018 clients completed surveys at baseline and at six, 12, or 36 months. Regression analysis was used to estimate intervention effects and intervention-by-sector interaction effects on depression, mental health-related quality of life, and community-prioritized outcomes and on services use., Results: For outcomes, there were few significant intervention-by-sector interactions, and stratified findings suggested benefits of coalition building in both sectors. For services use, at 36 months, increases were found for coalition building in primary care visits, self-help visits, and appropriate treatment for community clients and in community-based services use for health care clients., Conclusions: Relative to program technical assistance, community coalition building benefited clients across sectors and shifted long-term utilization across sectors.

Objective: Community Partners in Care, a community-partnered, cluster-randomized trial with depressed clients from 93 Los Angeles health and community programs, examined the added value of a community coalition approach (Community Engagement and Planning [CEP]) versus individual program technical assistance (Resources for Services [RS]) for implementing depression quality improvement in underserved communities. CEP was more effective than RS in improving mental health-related quality of life, reducing behavioral health hospitalizations, and shifting services toward community-based programs at six months. At 12 months, continued evidence of improvement was found. This study examined three-year outcomes., Methods: Among 1,004 participants with depression who were eligible for three-year follow-up, 600 participants from 89 programs completed surveys. Multiple regression analyses estimated intervention effects on poor mental health-related quality of life and depression, physical health-related quality of life, behavioral health hospital nights, and use of services., Results: At three years, no differences were found in the effects of CEP versus RS on depression or mental health-related quality of life, but CEP had modest effects in improving physical health-related quality of life and reducing behavioral health hospital nights, and CEP participants had more social- and community-sector depression visits and greater use of mood stabilizers. Sensitivity analyses with longitudinal modeling reproduced these findings but found no significant differences between groups in change from baseline to three years., Conclusions: At three years, CEP and RS did not have differential effects on primary mental health outcomes, but CEP participants had modest improvements in physical health and fewer behavioral health hospital nights.

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of a (CEP) versus a technical assistance approach (Resources for Services, or RS) to disseminate depression care for low-income ethnic minority women., Methods: We conducted secondary analyses of intervention effects for largely low-income, minority women subsample (n = 595; 45.1% Latino and 45.4% African American) in a matched, clustered, randomized control trial conducted in 2 low-resource communities in Los Angeles, California, between 2010 and 2012. Outcomes assessed included mental health, socioeconomic factors, and service use at 6- and 12-month follow-up., Results: Although we found no intervention difference for depressive symptoms, there were statistically significant effects for mental health quality of life, resiliency, homelessness risk, and financial difficulties at 6 months, as well as missed work days, self-efficacy, and care barriers at 12 months favoring CEP relative to RS. CEP increased use of outpatient substance abuse services and faith-based depression visits at 6 months., Conclusions: Engaging health care and social community programs may offer modest improvements on key functional and socioeconomic outcomes, reduce care barriers, and increase engagement in alternative depression services for low-income, predominantly ethnic minority women.