A trial of the effect of a standardized psychiatric consultation on health outcomes and costs in somatizing patients. Primary care clinicians treat patients with medically unexplained symptoms: a randomized controlled trial. Psychosocial interventions for somatizing patients by the general practitioner: a randomized controlled trial. Psychiatric consultation in somatization disorder. A randomized controlled study. Effectiveness of collaborative care depression treatment in Veterans' Affairs primary care. A randomized controlled trial of a close monitoring program for minor depression and distress.
Patients who somatize but who do not meet criteria for somatization disorder are common in the community. Virtually no research has been conducted to determine how to treat these patients.
                We conducted a randomized controlled clinical trial of a psychiatric consultation intervention we had previously shown to improve the management of somatization disorder. The study population included 51 physicians treating 56 somatizing patients who had a history of seeking help for six to 12 lifetime unexplained physical symptoms. At the onset of the experiment, physicians randomized to the treatment condition received a consultation letter recommending a specific management approach; physicians randomized to the control/crossover condition received the consultation letter after 12 months. Data on health outcomes and charges were collected every 4 months for 2 years after randomization for 96% of subjects who entered the study.
                Patients of physicians who received the intervention reported significantly increased physical functioning, an improvement that remained stable during the year after the intervention. The intervention reduced annual medical care charges by $289 (95% confidence interval, $40 to $464) in 1990 constant dollars, which equates to a 32.9% reduction in the annual median cost of their medical care.
                Somatizing patients with a lifetime history of six to 12 unexplained physical symptoms reported better physical functioning after their primary care physician was provided appropriate treatment recommendations via a psychiatric consultation. Such a consultation is cost-effective because it reduces subsequent charges for medical care, while improving health outcomes in a chronically impaired population. There is no proven primary care treatment for patients with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS). We hypothesized that a long-term, multidimensional intervention by primary care providers would improve MUS patients' mental health.
                Clinical trial.
                HMO in Lansing, MI.
                Patients from 18 to 65 years old with 2 consecutive years of high utilization were identified as having MUS by a reliable chart rating procedure; 206 subjects were randomized and 200 completed the study.
                From May 2000 to January 2003, 4 primary care clinicians deployed a 12-month intervention consisting of cognitive-behavioral, pharmacological, and other treatment modalities. A behaviorally defined patient-centered method was used by clinicians to facilitate this treatment and the provider-patient relationship.
                The primary endpoint was an improvement from baseline to 12 months of 4 or more points on the Mental Component Summary of the SF-36.
                Two hundred patients averaged 13.6 visits for the year preceding study. The average age was 47.7 years and 79.1% were females. Using intent to treat, 48 treatment and 34 control patients improved (odds ratio [OR]=1.92, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08 to 3.40; P=.02). The relative benefit (relative "risk" for improving) was 1.47 (CI: 1.05 to 2.07), and the number needed to treat was 6.4 (95% CI: 0.89 to 11.89). The following baseline measures predicted improvement: severe mental dysfunction (P<.001), severe body pain (P=.039), nonsevere physical dysfunction (P=.003), and at least 16 years of education (P=.022); c-statistic=0.75.
                The first multidimensional intervention by primary care clinicians led to clinically significant improvement in MUS patients. The objective of this study was to compare the effects of psychosocial interventions based on the modified reattribution model for somatizing patients in general practice (GP) with those of nonspecific psychosocial primary care (PPC) alone.
                Forty-two GPs were randomized, 23 into the intervention group (IG), who were trained in reattribution techniques, and 19 into the control group (CG). One hundred twenty-seven patients were included. Primary outcome measures were somatoform symptoms and quality of life.
                Multilevel modeling revealed a reduction of physical symptoms (P = .007), an improvement in physical functioning (P = .0172), and a reduction of depression (P = .0211) and anxiety (P = .0388) in the IG compared with the CG at the 3-month follow-up. However, results no longer remained significant after controlling for baseline and covariate variables besides a reduction of physical symptoms at 6-month follow-up (P = .029).
                Compared with nonspecific PPC, the effects of reattribution techniques were small and limited to physical symptoms. The per capita expenditure for health care of patients with multiple physical symptoms but no apparent physical disease (somatization disorder) is up to nine times the average per capita amount. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to determine whether psychiatric consultation would reduce the medical costs of these patients, without effecting a substantial change in patient outcome. Thirty-eight patients were randomly assigned to treatment or control groups and studied prospectively for 18 months. Treatment consisted of a psychiatric consultation and suggestions on management given to primary physicians. After nine months, the control group was crossed over to receive treatment with the same intervention. After the psychiatric consultation, the quarterly health care charges in the treatment group declined by 53 percent (P less than 0.05). In contrast, the charges in the control group showed wide variations but no overall change. The quarterly charges in the control group were significantly higher than those in the treatment group (P less than 0.05). After the control group was crossed over to receive treatment, their quarterly charges declined by 49 percent (P less than 0.05). The reductions in expenditures in both groups were due largely to decreases in hospitalization. We conclude that psychiatric consultation in the care of patients with somatization disorder reduced subsequent health care expenditures without inducing changes in health status or patients' satisfaction with their health care. To compare collaborative care for treatment of depression in primary care with consult-liaison (CL) care. In collaborative care, a mental health team provided a treatment plan to the primary care provider, telephoned patients to support adherence to the plan, reviewed treatment results, and suggested modifications to the provider. In CL care, study clinicians informed the primary care provider of the diagnosis and facilitated referrals to psychiatry residents practicing in the primary care clinic.
                Patients were randomly assigned to treatment model by clinic firm.
                VA primary care clinic.
                One hundred sixty-eight collaborative care and 186 CL patients who met criteria for major depression and/or dysthymia.
                Hopkins Symptom Checklist (SCL-20), Short Form (SF)-36, Sheehan Disability Scale.
                Collaborative care produced greater improvement than CL in depressive symptomatology from baseline to 3 months (SCL-20 change scores), but at 9 months there was no significant difference. The intervention increased the proportion of patients receiving prescriptions and cognitive behavioral therapy. Collaborative care produced significantly greater improvement on the Sheehan at 3 months. A greater proportion of collaborative care patients exhibited an improvement in SF-36 Mental Component Score of 5 points or more from baseline to 9 months.
                Collaborative care resulted in more rapid improvement in depression symptomatology, and a more rapid and sustained improvement in mental health status compared to the more standard model. Mounting evidence indicates that collaboration between primary care providers and mental health specialists can improve depression treatment and supports the necessary changes in clinic structure and incentives. Minor depression is almost twice as common in primary care (PC) as major depression. Despite the high prevalence, few evidence-based algorithms exist for managing patients with minor depression or patients presenting solely with distress.
                The aim of this study was to test the effectiveness of a telephone-based close monitoring program to manage PC patients with minor depression or distress.
                Subjects were randomly assigned to either the control arm (usual care; UC) or the intervention arm (close monitoring; CM). We hypothesized that those randomized to CM would exhibit less depression and be less likely to have symptoms progress to the point of meeting diagnostic criteria.
                Overall, 223 PC subjects with minor depression or distress consented to participation in this trial.
                At baseline, subjects completed a telephone-based evaluation comprised of validated diagnostic assessments of depression and other MH disorders. Outcomes were assessed at six months utilizing this same battery. Chart reviews were conducted to track care received, such as prescribed antidepressants and MH and primary care visits.
                Subjects in the CM arm exhibited fewer psychiatric diagnoses than those in the UC arm (chi(2) = 4.04, 1 df, p = 0.04). In addition, the intervention group showed improved overall physical health (SF-12 PCS scores) (M = 45.1, SD = 11.8 versus M = 41.5, SD = 12.4) (chi(2) = 5.90, 1 df, p = .02).
                Those randomized to CM exhibited less MH problems at the conclusion of the trial, indicating that the close monitoring program is effective, feasible and valuable. The findings of this study will allow us to enhance clinical care and support the integration of mental health services and primary care.
There is limited evidence that a CL is effective in terms of medical costs and improvement of physical functioning for patients with MUPS in primary care. The results are even less pronounced in patients with clinically less severe, but more meaningful, forms of MUPS and the results vary for other patient-related outcomes. All studies, except one, were performed in the United States and therefore the results can not be generalized directly to countries with other healthcare systems. Furthermore all studies were small and of only moderate quality. There is very limited evidence that a joint consultation with the patient by a psychiatrist in the presence of the physician, together with the provision of a CL, reduces severity of somatization symptoms and medical consumption.