The Relationship Between Quality and Outcomes in Routine Depression Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This longitudinal, nonexperimental study examined whether depression treatment provided in concordance with guidelines developed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is associated with improved clinical outcomes. METHODS: The medical, insurance, and pharmacy records of a community-based sample of 435 subjects who screened positive for current major depression were abstracted to ascertain whether depression treatment was received and whether it was provided in accordance with AHRQ guidelines. Regression analyses estimated the impact of guideline-concordant treatment on the change in depression severity and on mental and physical health over a six-month period. An instrumental variables analysis was used to check the sensitivity of the results to selection bias. RESULTS: A total of 106 subjects were treated for depression by 105 different primary care and specialty providers. Sixty percent of the sample had current major depression, and about 40 percent had subthreshold depression. Only 29 percent of the patients received guideline-concordant treatment. For patients with major depression, guideline-concordant care was significantly and substantially associated with improved depression severity but not with improvements in overall mental or physical health. The instrumental variables analysis indicated that the standard regression analysis underestimated the treatment effect by 21 percent. For those with subthreshold depression, guideline-concordant care was not associated with improved outcomes. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: This community-based, nonexperimental study found a positive relationship between the quality of care for depression and clinical outcomes for patients with major depression in routine practice settings.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 49 citations exist upstream.