Behavioral Medicine Intervention With Depressed Patients in a Community Health Center Setting
|The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.|
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01330420|
Recruitment Status : Completed
First Posted : April 7, 2011
Results First Posted : October 10, 2013
Last Update Posted : November 21, 2017
|Condition or disease||Intervention/treatment||Phase|
|Depression||Behavioral: Relaxation Response Resiliency Program for Depression||Not Applicable|
The application of behavioral medicine programs in community health settings is important to explore, as that application empowers the patient to apply self-care modalities that can be utilized in the long-term, for depression as well as for many other stress-related illnesses.
Behavioral and Mind/Body techniques, such as the Relaxation Response, have been reported to be useful therapeutically (often as an adjunct to medical treatment) in numerous conditions that are caused or exacerbated by stress including: mild to moderate depression/anxiety; anxiety; headache; back/neck pain; myocardial ischemia; premature ventricular contractions in stable ischemic heart disease or hypertension; osteoarthritis; stress symptoms; improved outcomes after cardiac and other surgery; pain relief and anxiety reduction in femoral arteriography and other invasive medical procedures; premenstrual syndrome; infertility; psychosomatic complaints; chronic pain; insomnia; musculoskeletal disorders; wound healing; rheumatoid arthritis; fibromyalgia and disease and treatment related symptoms of cancer. In our recent review of the literature, we suggest that the Relaxation Response may be an appropriate and relevant therapeutic state to counteract several stress-related disease processes.
|Study Type :||Interventional (Clinical Trial)|
|Actual Enrollment :||28 participants|
|Intervention Model:||Single Group Assignment|
|Masking:||None (Open Label)|
|Primary Purpose:||Supportive Care|
|Official Title:||Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of a Behavioral Medicine Intervention With Depressed Patients in a Community Health Center Setting|
|Study Start Date :||September 2007|
|Actual Primary Completion Date :||April 2010|
|Actual Study Completion Date :||August 2010|
Experimental: Relaxation Response Resiliency Program for Depression
The Relaxation Response Resiliency Program for Depression (3RP-D) is a low-cost, easily replicable, 6-session, 1.5 hour, mind body intervention.
The 3RP-D was designed to promote resiliency by reducing the harmful effects of stress through the elicitation of the relaxation response, and through skill training to enhance positive attitudes and beliefs, nutrition, exercise, recuperative sleep, social support, and coping. Specific interventions include: cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), enhancing social support (SS), cultivating positive attitudes and beliefs (CPE), and promoting Healthy Lifestyle Habits(HL). The 3RP-D program has been manualized for use by group facilitators and health center patients.
Behavioral: Relaxation Response Resiliency Program for Depression
The program combines lecture, skills training, symptom monitoring, and group sharing aimed at preparing patients to take active roles in managing their own health. Elements of the program include:
Other Name: Medical Symptom Reduction Program, Meditation, Mind Body techniques, Cognitive Psychology
- Depression Severity (CEDS-10) [ Time Frame: comparison pre program initiation and post program completion time points (6 weeks) ]The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D 10) was used to assess depression severity pre-and post-intervention. This is the shorter 10-item, modified version of the 20-item CES-D. The total score is the sum of the 10 item weights, with the lowest possible score being 0 and the highest possible score being 30, and a higher score indicating more depressive symptoms. Developed from other well-validated depression scales, this instrument measures the experience of depressive symptoms over the past week. This instrument is shown to be better than the CES-D 20 in combining data from different ethnic and cultural groups, and is available in both English and Spanish. This scale has been reported to have good internal consistency and validity.
- Health Status (SF-12) [ Time Frame: comparison pre program initiation and post program completion time points (6 weeks) ]The SF-12 was used to assess health status. It is the shortened version of the well-validated SF-36, directed at monitoring overall physical and mental health outcomes. It is available in both English and Spanish. Scoring algorithms involve weighted-item responses, all 8 scales to use the same standardization for easy comparison. All scores range from 0-100 where higher scores indicated better QOL. The mean = 50 and the SD = 10.
- Quality of Life (QOL-5) [ Time Frame: comparison pre program initiation and post program completion time points (6 weeks) ]The QOL-5 is a short, global, and generic quality of life (QoL) questionnaire for clinical databases. The QOL-5 item tool is used to compare various population groups using generic factors common to people everywhere irrespective of age, sex, culture, and state of health. Scores on the QOL-5 ranges from 0 = lowest quality to 100 = highest quality.
- Satisfaction With Care (PSQ-18) [ Time Frame: comparison pre program initiation and post program completion time points (6 weeks) ]Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire Short Form (PSQ-18) takes approximately 3-4 minutes to complete, containing 18 items examining seven dimensions of satisfaction with medical care: general satisfaction (2 questions, Mean =3.58, SD =0.94), technical quality (3 questions, Mean = 3.68, SD = 0.76), interpersonal manner (2 questions, Mean = 4.09, SD = 0.69), communication (2 questions, Mean = 3.74, SD = 0.87), financial aspects (2 questions, Mean = 3.78, SD = 0.94), time spent with doctor (2 questions, Mean = 3.59, SD = 0.94), and accessibility and convenience (4 questions, Mean = 3.76, SD = 0.74). Responses to each item are given on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 - strongly agree to 5 - strong disagree, therefore higher scores correspond to less satisfaction. PSQ-18 subscale scores are substantially correlated with their full-scale counterparts and possess generally adequate internal consistency reliability.
- The Health Promoting Lifestyle Profile II (HPLP-II) [ Time Frame: comparison pre program initiation and post program completion time points (6 weeks) ]
The Health Promoting Lifestyle Profile II (HPLP-II) was used to assess health promoting behaviors. Based on the Health Promoting Model (Pender, 1982) this 52-item instrument measures self-initiated health behaviors that serve to maintain or enhance the level of self-actualization and wellness. Included are subscales for physical activity, spiritual growth, health responsibility, interpersonal relations, nutrition, and stress management. It is self-administered and uses a 4-point response format. Both English and Spanish versions are available.
A score for overall health-promoting lifestyle is obtained by calculating a mean of the individual's responses to all 52 items; six subscale scores are obtained similarly by calculating a mean of the responses to subscale items. Scores range from 1 = Never to 4 = Routinely, with a higher score corresponding to a more health promoting lifestyle.
To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT01330420
|United States, Massachusetts|
|MGH Community Health Care Center|
|Charlestown, Massachusetts, United States|
|MGH Community Health Care Centers|
|Revere, Massachusetts, United States|
|Principal Investigator:||Gregory L. Fricchione, MD||Massachusetts General Hospital|
|Study Director:||Kathleen M. Miller, RN||Massachusetts General Hospital|
|Study Director:||Herbert Benson, MD||Massachusetts General Hospital|
|Study Director:||John W. Denninger, MD, PhD||Massachusetts General Hospital|