As a geriatric psychiatrist, I have become interested in gene-culture coevolution to better understand the meaning of aging. This investigation has led me to try to understand tribalism. This essay provides a background on gene-culture coevolution and tribalism from five, of several, comprehensible and recommendable books: The Social Conquest of Earth by Edward O. Wilson,1 The Secret of Our Success by Joseph Henrich,2 Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society by Nicholas Christakis,3 Humankind: A Hopeful History by Rutger Bregman,4 and Survival of the Friendliest by Brian Hare and Vanessa Woods.5 Reading and rereading these works has changed my understanding of what it means to be human and to have optimism in these times of the problems of tribalism. I hope a summary of these works will stimulate others to further investigate gene-culture evolution, tribalism and aging.

The author experienced an unexpected finding over 30 years ago. Despite many losses, older primary care patients had less psychiatric symptomatology than younger patients. This has led to a long learning and teaching focus on the positive relationship between aging and wisdom. Some recent research challenges this relationship. To deal with this challenge the author reflects on two related but complex questions with which he has been struggling. Is there an adaptive value of aging? If wisdom is more likely with aging, why? He concludes that aging is culturally adaptive and that wisdom is aging's individual and societal adaptive strength.

Collaborative care models hold promise as a means to improve the Military Health System (MHS) to better meet the mental health needs of U.S. military personnel. This article describes an Army-wide collaborative care initiative, RESPECT-Mil ("Re-engineering Systems of Primary Care Treatment for Depression and PTSD in the Military"), aimed at improving care for soldiers with depression and post traumatic stress disorder. Essential to the implementation of RESPECT-Mil has been the use of a centralized coordinating team to facilitate collaborative care practice and policy activities across the multiple levels of the MHS. The article explores the relevance of collaborative care frameworks to the social work profession and concludes with a discussion of future directions for the social work field to promote greater involvement in the integrated care movement.

Although collaborative care is effective for treating depression and other mental disorders in primary care, there have been no randomized trials of collaborative care specifically for patients with Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). To compare a collaborative approach, the Three Component Model (3CM), with usual care for treating PTSD in primary care. The study was a two-arm, parallel randomized clinical trial. PTSD patients were recruited from five primary care clinics at four Veterans Affairs healthcare facilities and randomized to receive usual care or usual care plus 3CM. Blinded assessors collected data at baseline and 3-month and 6-month follow-up. Participants were 195 Veterans. Their average age was 45 years, 91% were male, 58% were white, 40% served in Iraq or Afghanistan, and 42% served in Vietnam. All participants received usual care. Participants assigned to 3CM also received telephone care management. Care managers received supervision from a psychiatrist. PTSD symptom severity was the primary outcome. Depression, functioning, perceived quality of care, utilization, and costs were secondary outcomes. There were no differences between 3CM and usual care in symptoms or functioning. Participants assigned to 3CM were more likely to have a mental health visit, fill an antidepressant prescription, and have adequate antidepressant refills. 3CM participants also had more mental health visits and higher outpatient pharmacy costs. Results suggest the need for careful examination of the way that collaborative care models are implemented for treating PTSD, and for additional supports to encourage primary care providers to manage PTSD.

OBJECTIVE:Better outcomes for major depressive disorder (MDD) are associated with proactive treatment, including timely follow-up, systematic assessment and treatment changes for inadequate improvement. The effectiveness of an intervention to facilitate proactive treatment for MDD in a resident psychopharmacology clinic was studied.METHODS:A quality improvement program with administrative process changes to improve flow and a 40-week pre/post study to evaluate the effect of education and feedback was conducted. A systematic assessment and reengineered scheduling system were implemented. During the first 20 weeks, baseline data were collected; during the second 20 weeks, feedback to residents and attending psychiatrists about adherence to evidence-based treatment recommendations was added.RESULTS:Reengineering our system to improve flow was successful. By linking outcomes collection to completion of billing sheets, outcomes at 90% of visits for MDD throughout the 40-week study was assessed. By centralising our scheduling system, the percentage of active-phase patients with MDD seen for follow-up within 6 weeks was improved from 19% to 59%. In response to feedback, residents did not make significant changes to their overall practice patterns. Patient outcomes did not improve as a result of feedback to residents. Residents did improve their practice patterns for a subset of patients including those without comorbid psychiatric disorders and those whose depressive episodes had lasted <1 year.CONCLUSIONS:Improving administrative processes for the treatment of patients with MDD resulted in rapid changes that were associated with improvements in the delivery of evidence-based care. Feedback to residents was more difficult and less successful.

Research was undertaken to compare problem-solving treatment for primary care (PST-PC) with usual care for minor depression and to examine whether treatment effectiveness was moderated by coping style. PST-PC is a 6-session, manual-based, psychosocial skills intervention. A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 2 academic, primary care clinics. Those subjects who were eligible were randomized (N = 151), and 107 subjects completed treatment (57 PST-PC, 50 usual care) and a 35-week follow-up. Analysis with linear mixed modeling revealed significant effects of treatment and coping, such that those in PST-PC improved at a faster rate and those initially high in avoidant coping were significantly more likely to have sustained benefit from PST-PC.

Background: U.S. military ground forces report high rates of war-related traumatic stressors, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and depression following deployment in support of recent armed conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Affected service members do not receive needed mental health services in most cases, and they frequently report stigma and significant structural barriers to mental health services. Improvements in primary care may help address these issues, and evidence supports the effectiveness of a systems-level collaborative care approach. Objective: To test the feasibility of systems-level collaborative care for PTSD and depression in military primary care. We named our collaborative care model "Re-Engineering Systems of Primary Care for PTSD and Depression in the Military" (RESPECT-Mil). Methods: Key elements of RESPECT-Mil care include universal primary care screening for PTSD and depression, brief standardized primary care diagnostic assessment for those who screen positive, and use of a nurse "care facilitator" to ensure continuity of care for those with unmet depression and PTSD treatment needs. The care facilitator assists primary care providers with follow-up, symptom monitoring, and treatment adjustment and enhances the primary care interface with specialty mental health services. We report assessments of feasibility of RESPECT-Mil implementation in a busy primary care clinic supporting Army units undergoing frequent Iraq, Afghanistan, and other deployments. Results: Thirty primary care providers (family physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners) were trained in the model and in the care of depression and PTSD. The clinic screened 4,159 primary care active duty patient visits: 404 screens (9.7%) were positive for depression, PTSD, or both. Sixty-nine patients participated in collaborative care for 6 weeks or longer, and the majority of these patients experienced clinically important improvement in PTSD and depression. Even although RESPECT-Mil participation was voluntary for providers, only one refused participation. No serious adverse events were noted. Conclusions: Collaborative care is an evidence-based approach to improving the quality of primary care treatment of anxiety and depression. Our version of collaborative care for PTSD and depression., RESPECT-Mil, is feasible, safe, and acceptable to military primary care providers and patients, and participating patients frequently showed clinical improvements. Efforts to implement and evaluate collaborative care approaches for mental disorders in Populations at high risk for psychiatric complications of military service are warranted.

Objective: Pain is prevalent in patients with depression. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of pain on depression treatment outcomes. Methods: Data was analyzed from a randomized controlled trial comparing a collaborative care intervention to usual care for the treatment of depression in 60 primary care practices. A total of 405 patients with either current major depressive disorder or dysthymia were enrolled, and assessed at baseline, 3, and 6months. Main measures included the 20-item Hopkins Symptom Check List (HSCL-20) depression score, and the SF-36 pain interference score. Results: Pain severe enough to produce at least moderate interference with daily activities was present in 42% of depressed patients at baseline. Pain outcomes did not differ between intervention and control groups but improved similarly in both over time. However, pain was still at least moderately severe in 32% of patients at 6months. Both baseline pain and the amount of pain improvement over time were associated with depression remission and response rates. In a multivariate model controlling for age, gender, and medical co-morbidity, depression severity increased with higher pain interference and decreased with the passage of time (p<.0001 for both). There was also a significant pain by time by treatment group interaction (p=.027). The beneficial effects of collaborative care on depression outcome persisted (p=.049) even after controlling for pain interference, time, covariates, and interaction effects. Conclusions: Pain has a strong negative impact on the response of depression to treatment. Recognizing and optimizing the management of comorbid pain that commonly coexists with depression may be important in enhancing depression response and remission rates.

BACKGROUND:Re-Engineering Systems for Primary Care Treatment of Depression (RESPECT-D) sought to improve patient outcomes by disseminating the 3-component model of depression management. The purpose of this study was to determine whether an integrated model of depression management continued to be used by primary care clinicians after the end of a randomized controlled trial (RCT).METHODS:A descriptive evaluation was conducted at 2 time points. First, during a 12-month period after the end of the RESPECT-D RCT when referrals to care management were determined for each of the 5 participating health care organizations. Second, 3 years after the RCT ended, when clinicians were surveyed about use of the 3-component model.RESULTS:Three organizations continued to support the model with minimal modification. One made a major modification to it and one did not continue to support it. In the 12 months after the RCT, 1039 care management referrals were made. Seventy-one percent of RCT clinicians (n=92) completed the follow-up survey. Of these, 87% reported using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9; 58.9% reported availability of care management and 45.1% reported availability of informal psychiatry consultation.CONCLUSION:Practical clinical interventions can be sustained in primary care practice after the completion of an RCT. Additional resources may be needed to sustain and spread the program.

BACKGROUND:Integrated models of primary care depression management improve outcomes. Subsequent dissemination efforts and their evaluation need a fidelity measure. OBJECTIVES:We sought to develop and validate a fidelity measure using data gathered during routine clinical application of the clinical model. METHODS:Longitudinal outcome data on depression severity were obtained from 224 subjects experiencing major depression or dysthymia and assigned to a 3-component model (3CM) intervention. Data on 10 essential 3CM process-of-care components were obtained from telephone logs maintained by care managers administering 3CM care. Stakeholders (n = 23), including researchers, health care administrators, and care managers, independently rated the importance of the 10 elements distributing 100 points among the elements. Mean ratings were used as weights to construct a fidelity score. Predictive validity was assessed using logistic regression for patient response and remission at 3 and 6 months. RESULTS:3CM fidelity was high, with a mean of 74.1 at 3 months and 75.9 at 6 months. Given a large gap in the scores' distribution, subjects were classified into zero, low-, and high-fidelity groups. Logistic regressions adjusting for baseline depression found a distinct continuum. Patients that were provided high fidelity 3CM were significantly more likely to achieve treatment response and remission at 3 months. At 6 months, high-fidelity care was again significantly more likely to produce a response, but remission rate did not differ from patients provided low fidelity. CONCLUSIONS:Most patients received a substantially implemented "3CM dose." Even within this high implementation, however, a higher fidelity score was associated with better outcomes. The easily applied measure is a promising tool for monitoring the quality of implementation of integrated care.

ABSTRACT Objective: This report describes the prevalence and correlates of co-occurring depressive symptoms and alcohol use in an older Veteran's Affairs primary care clinic population. Methods: Participants include 8,782 older primary care patients (age 65 +) who responded to a self-report, mailed survey. Patients were classified into six mutually exclusive groups based upon screening indicators for problem drinking (quantity/frequency questions) and depressive symptoms (General Health Questionnaire). Groups included: (a) neither problem drinking nor depressive symptoms (n = 6,415, 73.0%); (b) at-risk alcohol use (n = 761; 8.7%); (c) heavy alcohol use (n = 201; 2.3%); (d) depressive symptoms (n = 1,234, 14.1%); (e) depressive symptoms and at-risk alcohol use (n = 120; 1.4%); and (f) depressive symptoms and heavy alcohol use (n = 51; 0.6%). Chi-square and ANOVA were used to test for equality of demographic and clinical characteristics across groups. Results: 12.9% of patients reported alcohol use consistent with problem drinking (including 10.0% with at-risk alcohol use and 2.9% with heavy alcohol use) and 16.1% screened positive for possible depressive symptoms (including 2.0% with co-occurring at-risk or heavy alcohol use). The combination of heavy alcohol use and depressive symptoms was associated with the highest rates of death and suicidal ideation; living alone; being divorced, separated, or widowed; and regular cigarette smoking. The presence of depressive symptoms (regardless of amount of alcohol use) was associated with worse perceived health, and perceived lack of social support. Finally, individuals with at-risk alcohol use alone were younger and had better perceived health compared to those with non-problem alcohol use or no alcohol use. However, there were no differences between those with at-risk drinking and depressive symptoms and those with depressive symptoms alone. Conclusions: Self-reported heavy alcohol use combined with depressive symptoms identifies a subgroup of older primary care patients at especially high risk with respect to suicidal ideation and poor mental and physical well-being. In contrast, older adults with depressive symptoms and self-reported “at-risk” alcohol use were not differentiated from older persons with depressive symptoms reporting non-problematic or nonuse of alcohol.

OBJECTIVES:The objectives of this study were to determine remission rates and predictors of improvement for minor depression following a 1-month watchful waiting period in primary care and to describe the watchful waiting processes. METHODS:Prior to randomization into a clinical trial for minor depression, 111 participants were entered into a 1-month watchful waiting period. Depression severity and predictors of improvement were measured at the start of watchful waiting. At the end of watchful waiting, remission rates were calculated and predictor variables were analyzed for their contribution toward predicting improvement. RESULTS:Remission rates were low, ranging from 9% to 13%, depending on the measure. Avoidant coping style and frequency of engaging in active pleasant events at baseline accounted for the majority of change in depression. During watchful waiting, about one fifth of the sample (21%) had at least one contact with their physician and 27% reported using self-initiated treatments. CONCLUSIONS:There is a low likelihood of spontaneous remission for treatment-seeking samples with minor depression in primary care. An avoidant coping style seriously interferes with remission, and engaging in regular active pleasant events confers an advantage. Feasible interventions for primary care that promote activity and decrease avoidant coping styles may improve outcomes. These findings may not generalize to community and non-treatment-seeking samples.

The majority of primary care clinicians accept the responsibility of treating depression across patients' life span; and mental health specialists must respect and foster this responsibility. Primary care clinicians are ready to entertain more organized monitoring, follow-up, and collaboration with mental health specialists, as long as the issues of care complexity, role clarification, and costs can be resolved. Disseminating the concepts and tools of systems of depression management to primary care practices while simultaneously addressing policy implications at the level of payers and regulators holds considerable promise for translating evidence-based research into improved care for the large numbers of depressed patients in primary care.

BACKGROUND:Recent trials have shown improved depression outcomes with chronic care models. We report the methods of a project that assesses the sustainability and transportability of a chronic care model for depression and change strategy.METHODS:In a randomized controlled trial (RCT), a clinical model for depression was implemented through a strategy supporting practice change. The clinical model is evidence based. The change strategy relies on established quality improvement programs and is informed by diffusion of innovations theory. Evaluation will address patient outcomes, as well as process of care and process of change.RESULTS:Five medical groups and health plans are participating in the trial. The RCT involves 180 clinicians in 60 practices. All practices assigned to the clinical model have implemented it. Participating organizations have the potential to disseminate this clinical model of care to 700 practices and 1,700 clinicians.CONCLUSIONS:It is feasible to implement the clinical model and change strategy in diverse practices. Follow-up evaluation will determine the impact, sustainability, and potential for dissemination. Materials are available through http://www. depression-primarycare.org; more in-depth descriptions of the clinical model and change strategy are available in the online-only appendixes to this article.

Depression is a common problem encountered in primary care practice. There are many barriers that the primary care clinician faces in managing patients with depression. Financial reimbursement is one infrequently addressed barrier that influences how care is provided. This article addresses the coding, documentation, and reimbursement issues that pertain to the treatment of depression in the primary care setting. Coding options are reviewed with specific documentation guidelines. Reimbursement and fee schedule issues are also addressed, including clarification of certain limitations on payment by some payers.