Community Partners in Care is a Research Project Funded by the National Institutes of Health (CPIC)

• ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01699789
• Recruitment Status: Completed
• First Posted: October 4, 2012
• Results First Posted: November 17, 2014
• Last Update Posted: June 24, 2021
• Sponsor: RAND
• Collaborators: National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH); Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; National Library of Medicine (NLM); Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD)
• Information provided by (Responsible Party): RAND

Study Description

Brief Summary:

CPIC is a community initiative and research study funded by the NIH. CPIC was developed and is being run by community and academic partners in Los Angeles underserved communities of color. CPIC compares two ways of supporting diverse health and social programs in under-resourced communities to improve their services to depressed clients. One approach is time-limited expert technical assistance coupled with culturally-competent community outreach to individual programs, on how to use quality improvement toolkits for depression that have already been proven to be effective or helpful in primary care settings, but adapted for this study for use in diverse community-based programs in underserved communities. The other approach brings different types of agencies and members in a community together in a 4 to 6-month planning process, to fit the same depression quality improvement programs to the needs and strengths of the community and to develop a network of programs serving the community to support clients with depression together. The study is designed to determine the added value of community engagement and planning over and above what might be offered through a community-oriented, disease management company. Both intervention models are based on the same quality improvement toolkits that support team leadership, care management, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, medication management, and patient education and activation. Investigators hypothesized that the community engagement approach would increase agency and clinician participation in evidence-based trainings and improve client mental health-related quality of life. In addition, during the design phase, community participants prioritized adding as outcomes indicators of social determinants of mental health, including physical functioning, risk factors for homelessness and employment. Investigators hypothesized by activating community agencies that can address health and social services needs to engage depressed clients, these outcomes would also be improved more in the collaboration condition. Investigators also hypothesized that the collaboration approach would increase use of services.

Condition or disease	Intervention/treatment	Phase
Depression; Information Dissemination; Social Determinants of Health	Other: Quality Improvement Program; Behavioral: Resources for Services Expert Team; Behavioral: Community Engagement and Planning Council	Not Applicable

Detailed Description:

Underserved communities of color in low income, largely ethnic-minority neighborhoods face an excessive burden of illness from depression due to higher prevalence of depression and lower access to quality care. Evidence-based quality improvement (QI) programs for depression in primary care settings-where many low-income and minority patients receive their only mental health care-can enhance quality of depression care and improve health outcomes. These programs are under-utilized in community-based health care settings, and have not been adapted for use across diverse agencies (social service, faith based, primary and specialty care) that could partner to support disease management for depression. Partners in Care (PIC)and WE Care are interventions designed to improve access to evidence-based depression treatments (medication management or psychotherapy) for primary care patients and, in WE Care, social service clients. PIC evaluated a services delivery intervention while WE Care was an effectiveness trial with study-provided treatments. Both studies promoted use of the same evidence-based treatments. Both PIC and WE Care programs improved use of evidence-based treatments for depression and health outcomes for African Americans and Latinos. The PIC interventions reduced health outcome disparities evident in usual care in the first follow-up year and at five-year follow-up. While these findings offer hope to underserved communities, such communities have poor resources to support implementation of these programs, and may have historical distrust in research and health care settings. There is no evidence-based approach to support agency networks in underserved communities in implementing QI programs for depression. To address this information gap, investigators created Community Partners in Care (CPIC), a group-level randomized, controlled trial, with randomization at the level of an agency site or "unit." The trial is being fielded in two underserved communities, Hollywood and South Los Angeles, and conducted through a community- participatory, partnered research (CPPR) approach.

The specific aims of the study are:

1. To engage two underserved communities in improving safety-net care for depression.
2. To examine the effects of a community-engagement approach to implementing evidence-based depression quality improvement toolkits (PIC/WE Care) through a community collaborative network across services sectors, compared to technical assistance to individual programs from the same services sectors coupled with culturally-competent outreach to implement the same toolkits. The outcomes are: a) client access to care, quality of care and health outcomes, with the primary outcome being mental-health related quality of life and additional outcomes reflecting social determinants of mental health of interest to the community (physical health, homelessness risk factors, employment); b) services utilization and costs; c) agency adoption of PIC/WE Care; d) and provider attitudes, knowledge and practice.
3. To describe the process of implementation of the community engagement intervention.

CPIC was awarded funds from the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) in 2013 to accomplish the following 3 aims:

1. To compare the long-term (3-year) effectiveness of community engagement and planning versus agency technical assistance to implement depression QI and improve depressed clients' health status and risk for homelessness
2. To determine how depressed clients in under-resourced communities prioritize diverse health and social outcomes and identify their preferences for services to address priority outcomes
3. To identify capacities of providers to respond to depressed clients' priorities and to generate recommendations for building capacity to better address clients'priorities.

We hypothesize that community engagement and planning will be more effective than technical assistance in improving 3-year outcomes and that clients will prioritize quality of life. We expect to find gaps in provider capacities to address client priorities that network strategies could address.

Our primary outcome for the long-term follow-up is mental health related quality of life and secondary outcomes are use of healthcare and community services for depression and physical functioning and homeless risk factors.

In 2014, CPIC was awarded funds from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) to use existing quantitative CPIC data and collect new qualitative data to describe pathways to reducing disparities. The funding allows us to longitudinally track the implementation of the CEP model in a new county-wide initiative to develop community networks to promote healthy neighborhoods. The aims under this additional funding are:

1. To determine pathways to reducing mental health and social disparities by conducting community-academic partnered analyses of CPIC data by 1) examining intervention effects for disparity subgroups (African Americans, Latinos, gender groups, insurance and housing status groups); 2) identifying predictors and mediators of barriers to access/services and client outcomes; 3) analyzing intervention effects on provider workforce diversity; and 4) generating explanatory models for intervention effects and their sustainability by interviewing CPIC administrators and providers, as well as prior and current clients.
2. To explore the generalizability and replicability of the CPIC partnered model and, more broadly, to inform the process of incorporating science into policy by conducting a longitudinal case study of the CEP model implementation in a county-wide "neighborhood health" initiative in Los Angeles to reduce mental health and social disparities.

As a result of this study, we will be able to explain how community-engaged and participatory models of intervention implementation can reduce health and social disparities and ultimately achieve public health impact. Study findings will be disseminated widely using traditional academic, community-valued, and policy-relevant dissemination channels.

Study Design

• Study Type: Interventional (Clinical Trial)
• Actual Enrollment: 1246 participants
• Allocation: Randomized
• Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
• Masking: Single (Outcomes Assessor)
• Primary Purpose: Health Services Research
• Official Title: CPIC is a Community Partnered Participatory Research (CPPR) Project of Community and Academic Partners Working Together to Learn the Best Way to Reduce Depression in Our Communities.
• Study Start Date: January 2009
• Actual Primary Completion Date: May 31, 2016
• Actual Study Completion Date: May 31, 2016

Arms and Interventions

Arm	Intervention/treatment
Active Comparator: Resources for Services; The Resources for Services condition offers time-limited technical assistance to individual agencies, coupled with outreach from a community engagement specialty, to participate in structured reviews of components of the Quality Improvement Program Intervention as implemented by the Resources for Services Expert Team.	Other: Quality Improvement Program; The quality improvement program is an evidence-based toolkit from prior studies (see Names above) that supported team leadership, case and care management, medication management, and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Depression. The Case management manual supported depression screening and monitoring/tracking of outcomes; patient education and activation, care coordination, and behavioral activation and problem solving. The toolkit includes education on depression and a community health worker manual.; Other Names: Partners in Care; We Care; IMPACT; Mental Health Infrastructure and Training Project; Behavioral: Resources for Services Expert Team; The expert team consisted for RS consisted of 3 psychiatrists, a psychologist expert in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, a nurse care manager, a community engagement specialist, a quality improvement expert, and staff support. They team offered 12 web-based seminars to each community on components of collaborative care as well as site visits to primary care clinics on clinical assessment and medication management.; Other Name: Quality Improvement Team
Experimental: Community Engagement and Planning; The Community Engagement and Planning arm supported 4 months of planning for the Community Engagement and Planning Council consisting representatives of all assigned programs in biweekly 2 hour meetings to fit trainings in the Quality Improvement Program to the community and develop strategies across programs to collaborate as a network. The CEP Council developed a written plan for training and monitoring and supported implementation of the training plan. CEP sites were provided with enrolled client lists.	Other: Quality Improvement Program; The quality improvement program is an evidence-based toolkit from prior studies (see Names above) that supported team leadership, case and care management, medication management, and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Depression. The Case management manual supported depression screening and monitoring/tracking of outcomes; patient education and activation, care coordination, and behavioral activation and problem solving. The toolkit includes education on depression and a community health worker manual.; Other Names: Partners in Care; We Care; IMPACT; Mental Health Infrastructure and Training Project; Behavioral: Community Engagement and Planning Council; The CEP Council was supported by a workbook developed by the overall CPIC Council that provided principles, approach, agendas, and resources for the multi-sector planning meetings. The CEP Councils met twice a month for 4-6 months to develop their plan and met monthly during implementation of trainings. The study Council supported CEP meetings. Community leaders co-led trainings with study experts to help assure sustainability. Each CEP council had $15K to defray costs of venues, materials, and consultations, while the study provided that for RS.; Other Name: Quality Improvement Team

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures :

1. Percent of Participants With Poor Mental Health Quality of Life, MCS12≤ 40 [ Time Frame: 6 months follow-up ]
   From the Short Form, 12-item quality of life measure, mental health-related quality of life is the primary client outcome. Poor mental health related quality of life is defined as MCS12≤ 40 (one standard deviation below population mean).
2. Percent of Participants With PHQ-9 Score ≥ 10 [ Time Frame: 6 months follow-up ]
   Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item version (PHQ-9) at least mild depression (score ≥ 10)
3. Percent of Participants With Poor Mental Health Quality of Life, MCS12≤ 40 [ Time Frame: 12 months follow-up ]
   From the Short Form, 12-item quality of life measure, mental health-related quality of life is the primary client outcome. Poor mental health related quality of life is defined as MCS12≤ 40 (one standard deviation below population mean).
4. Percent of Participants With Poor Mental Health Quality of Life, MCS12≤ 40 [ Time Frame: 36 months follow-up ]
   From the Short Form, 12-item quality of life measure, mental health-related quality of life is the primary client outcome. Poor mental health related quality of life is defined as MCS12≤ 40 (one standard deviation below population mean).
5. Percent of Participants With PHQ-8 Score ≥ 10 [ Time Frame: 36 months follow-up ]
   Patient Health Questionnaire 8-item version (PHQ-8) at least mild depression (score ≥ 10)

Secondary Outcome Measures :

1. Percent of Participants With Mental Wellness [ Time Frame: 6 months follow-up ]
   Mental wellness is defined as at least a good bit of time in the prior 4 weeks on any of three items: feeling peaceful or calm, being a happy person, having energy
2. Percent of Participants Reported Organized Life [ Time Frame: 6 months follow-up ]
   A response of somewhat or definitely true to "my life is organized" versus unsure or somewhat false or definitely false
3. Percent of Participants With Physically Active [ Time Frame: 6 months follow-up ]
   Physically Active is defined as at least active to "How physically active you are?"
4. Percent of Participants With Homeless or ≥ 2 Risk Factors for Homelessness [ Time Frame: 6 months follow-up ]
   Defined as current homelessness or living in a shelter or having at least 2 risk factors (e.g., no place to stay for at least 2 nights or eviction from a primary residence, financial crisis, or food insecurity in the past 6 months)
5. Percent of Participants With Working for Pay [ Time Frame: 6 months follow-up ]
6. Percent of Participants With Any Missed Work Day in Last 30 Days, if Working [ Time Frame: 6 months follow-up ]
7. Percent of Participants With Hospitalization for Behavioral Health in the Past 6 Months [ Time Frame: 6 months follow-up ]
   self-reported services use in the past 6 months for overnight hospital stays for mental health or substance abuse
8. Percent of Participants With >=4 Hospital Nights for Behavioral Health in the Past 6 Months [ Time Frame: 6 months follow-up ]
   self-reported services use in the past 6 months with >=4 overnight hospital stays for any emotional, mental, alcohol, or drug problem, median cut point for baseline variable
9. Percent of Participants With >=2 Emergency Room Visits in the Past 6 Months [ Time Frame: 6 months follow-up ]
   self-reported services use in the past 6 months with >=2 emergency room visits in past 6 months, median cut point for baseline variable
10. Percent of Participants With Any MHS Outpatient Visit in the Past 6 Months [ Time Frame: 6 months follow-up ]
    self-reported mental health outpatient visit from mental health provider, including psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, psychiatric nurses, or counselors in the past 6 months
11. Percent of Participants With Any PCP Visit With Depression Service in the Past 6 Months [ Time Frame: 6 months follow-up ]
    self-reported services use in the past 6 months with any primary care visit for depression
12. Percent of Participants With >= 2 PCP Visits With Depression Services, if Any [ Time Frame: 6 months follow-up ]
13. Percent of Participants With Faith-based Program Participation in the Past 6 Months [ Time Frame: 6 months follow-up ]
    Went to any religious or spiritual places such as a church, mosque, temple, or synagogue in the past 6 months
14. Percent of Participants With Any Use of Park and Recreation or Community Centers in the Past 6 Months [ Time Frame: 6 months follow-up ]
15. Percent of Participants With Use of an Antidepressant Medication for 2 Months or More in the Past 6 Months [ Time Frame: 6 months follow-up ]
16. Medication Visits Among MHS Users in the Past 6 Months [ Time Frame: 6 months follow-up ]
17. Faith-based Visits With Depression Service if Faith Participation in the Past 6 Months [ Time Frame: 6 months follow-up ]
    For this sector, depression/mental health service is defined by client report of having assessment, counseling, education, medication discussion or referral for depression or emotional or mental health problems.
18. Park or Community Center Visits With Depression Service if Went to Park or Community Center in Past 6 Months [ Time Frame: 6 months follow-up ]
    For this sector, depression/mental health service is defined by client report of having assessment, counseling, education, medication discussion or referral for depression or emotional or mental health problems.
19. Total Mental Health Related Outpatient Visits in the Past 6 Months [ Time Frame: 6 months follow-up ]
    Total outpatient visits for depression, mental health or substance abuse from emergency rooms, primary care or public health, mental health, substance abuse, or social-community services sectors in the past 6 months
20. Percent of Participants With Hospitalization for Behavioral Health in the Past 6 Months [ Time Frame: 12 months follow-up ]
    self-reported services use in the past 6 months for overnight hospital stays for mental health or substance abuse
21. Percent of Participants With Any MHS Outpatient Visit in the Past 6 Months [ Time Frame: 12 months follow-up ]
    self-reported mental health outpatient visit from mental health provider, including psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, psychiatric nurses, or counselors in the past 6 months
22. Percent of Participants With Any PCP Visit With Depression Service in the Past 6 Months [ Time Frame: 12 months follow-up ]
    self-reported services use in the past 6 months with any primary care visit for depression
23. Percent of Participants With Faith-based Program Participation in the Past 6 Months [ Time Frame: 12 months follow-up ]
    Went to any religious or spiritual places such as a church, mosque, temple, or synagogue in the past 6 months
24. Percent of Participants With Any Use of Park and Recreation or Community Centers in the Past 6 Months [ Time Frame: 12 months follow-up ]
25. Percent of Participants With Use of an Antidepressant Medication for 2 Months or More in the Past 6 Months [ Time Frame: 12 months follow-up ]
26. Total Mental Health Related Outpatient Visits in the Past 6 Months [ Time Frame: 12 months follow-up ]
    Total outpatient visits for depression, mental health or substance abuse from emergency rooms, primary care or public health, mental health, substance abuse, or social-community services sectors in the past 6 months
27. PCS-12 Scores on 12-Item Physical Health Summary Measure, Comparison Between CEP and RS Groups [ Time Frame: 36 months follow-up ]
    12-item physical composite score (PCS-12). Possible scores on range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better physical health
28. Nights Hospitalized for Behavioral Health Reason in the Past 6 Months [ Time Frame: 36 months follow-up ]
    self-reported number of overnight hospital stays for any emotional, mental, alcohol, or drug problem in past 6 months
29. N of Emergency Room or Urgent Care Visits in the Past 6 Months [ Time Frame: 36 months follow-up ]
30. N of Visits to Primary Care in Past 6 Months [ Time Frame: 36 months follow-up ]
31. N of Outpatient Visits to Primary Care for Depression Services in the Past 6 Months [ Time Frame: 36 months follow-up ]
32. N of Outpatient Mental Health Visits in Past 6 Months [ Time Frame: 36 months follow-up ]
33. N of Outpatient Visits to a Substance Abuse Treatment Agency or Self Help Group in the Past 6 Months [ Time Frame: 36 months follow-up ]
34. N of Social Services for Depression Visits in the Past 6 Months [ Time Frame: 36 months follow-up ]
35. Number of Calls to Hotline for Substance Use or Mental Health Problem in the Past 6 Months [ Time Frame: 36 months follow-up ]
36. N of Days on Which a Self-help Visit for Mental Health Was Made in the Past 6 Months [ Time Frame: 36 months follow-up ]
37. Percent of Participants With Any Faith-based Services for Depression in the Past 6 Months [ Time Frame: 36 months follow-up ]
38. Percent of Participants With Use of Any Antidepressant in the Past 6 Months [ Time Frame: 36 months follow-up ]
39. Percent of Participants With Use of Any Mood Stabilizer in the Past 6 Months [ Time Frame: 36 months follow-up ]
40. Percent of Participants With Use of Any Antipsychotic in the Past 6 Months [ Time Frame: 36 months follow-up ]
41. Percent of Participants With Any Visit in Health Care Sector in the Past 6 Months [ Time Frame: 36 months follow-up ]
42. Percent of Participants With Any Community-sector Visit for Depression in the Past 6 Months [ Time Frame: 36 months follow-up ]
43. Percent of Participants With Any Depression Treatment in the Past 6 Months [ Time Frame: 36 months follow-up ]
    Antidepressant use for at least two months or at least four outpatient visits to mental health or primary care setting for depression services
44. Survival Analysis for Time to the First Clinical Remission [ Time Frame: from baseline to 3 years ]
    clinical remission: Patient Health Questionnaire, PHQ-8 score <10. Cox Proportional Hazard model was used to examine the impact of the intervention on speed of clinical remission over the 3 years follow-up period, defined as the first assessment with clinical remission (PHQ-8<10).
45. Survival Analysis for Time to the First Community-Defined Remission [ Time Frame: from baseline to 3 years ]
    Community-Defined Remission: PHQ-8<10 or MCS-12>40 or any mental wellness. Cox Proportional Hazard model was used to examine the impact of the intervention on speed of community-defined remission over the 3 years follow-up period, defined as the first assessment with community-defined (PHQ-8<10 or MCS-12>40 or any mental wellness)
46. Percent of Participants With Clinical Remission [ Time Frame: 4 years follow-up ]
    Clinical remission defined as Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) score < 3.
47. Percent of Participants With Community-Defined Remission [ Time Frame: 4 years follow-up ]
    Community-Defined Remission defined as PHQ-2<3, MCS-12>40, or mental wellness

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 18 Years and older (Adult, Older Adult)
• Sexes Eligible for Study: All
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: No

Criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

Administrators

• Age 18 and above
• Work or volunteer for an enrolled program in the study and be designated as a liaison by the program

Providers

• Age 18 and above
• Have direct contact with patients/clients

Clients

• Age 18 and above
• Score 10 or greater on modified Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8)

Exclusion Criteria: grossly disorganized by screener staff assessment Not providing personal contact information

Administrators - Under age 18

Providers

- Under age 18

Clients

• Under age 18
• Gross cognitive disorganization by screener staff assessment
• Providing no contact information

Contacts and Locations

Locations

United States, California

Krystal M Griffith

Gardena, California, United States, 90249

Sponsors and Collaborators

RAND

National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

National Library of Medicine (NLM)

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute

National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD)

Investigators

• Principal Investigator: Kenneth B Wells, M.D., M.P.H; RAND Corporation, UCLA Semel Institute
• Principal Investigator: Bowen Chung, MD, MSHS; Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, UCLA Semel Institute
• Principal Investigator: Jeanne Miranda, PhD; UCLA Semel Institute

  Study Documents (Full-Text)

Documents provided by RAND:

Study Protocol, Statistical Analysis Plan, and Informed Consent Form  [PDF] January 27, 2021

More Information

Additional Information:

Click here for more information about this study: Community Partners in Care 

Publications of Results:

Wells KB, Jones L, Chung B, Dixon EL, Tang L, Gilmore J, Sherbourne C, Ngo VK, Ong MK, Stockdale S, Ramos E, Belin TR, Miranda J. Community-partnered cluster-randomized comparative effectiveness trial of community engagement and planning or resources for services to address depression disparities. J Gen Intern Med. 2013 Oct;28(10):1268-78. doi: 10.1007/s11606-013-2484-3. Epub 2013 May 7. Erratum in: J Gen Intern Med. 2013 Nov;28(11):1534.

Miranda J, Ong MK, Jones L, Chung B, Dixon EL, Tang L, Gilmore J, Sherbourne C, Ngo VK, Stockdale S, Ramos E, Belin TR, Wells KB. Community-partnered evaluation of depression services for clients of community-based agencies in under-resourced communities in Los Angeles. J Gen Intern Med. 2013 Oct;28(10):1279-87. doi: 10.1007/s11606-013-2480-7. Epub 2013 May 14.

Chung B, Ong M, Ettner SL, Jones F, Gilmore J, McCreary M, Sherbourne C, Ngo V, Koegel P, Tang L, Dixon E, Miranda J, Belin TR, Wells KB. 12-month outcomes of community engagement versus technical assistance to implement depression collaborative care: a partnered, cluster, randomized, comparative effectiveness trial. Ann Intern Med. 2014 Nov 18;161(10 Suppl):S23-34. doi: 10.7326/M13-3011.

Chang ET, Wells KB, Gilmore J, Tang L, Morgan AU, Sanders S, Chung B. Comorbid depression and substance abuse among safety-net clients in Los Angeles: a community participatory study. Psychiatr Serv. 2015 Mar 1;66(3):285-94. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201300318. Epub 2014 Dec 1.

Chung B, Ngo VK, Ong MK, Pulido E, Jones F, Gilmore J, Stoker-Mtume N, Johnson M, Tang L, Wells KB, Sherbourne C, Miranda J. Participation in Training for Depression Care Quality Improvement: A Randomized Trial of Community Engagement or Technical Support. Psychiatr Serv. 2015 Aug 1;66(8):831-9. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201400099. Epub 2015 May 1.

Ngo VK, Sherbourne C, Chung B, Tang L, Wright AL, Whittington Y, Wells K, Miranda J. Community Engagement Compared With Technical Assistance to Disseminate Depression Care Among Low-Income, Minority Women: A Randomized Controlled Effectiveness Study. Am J Public Health. 2016 Oct;106(10):1833-41. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303304. Epub 2016 Aug 23.

Landry CM, Jackson AP, Tang L, Miranda J, Chung B, Jones F, Ong MK, Wells K. The Effects of Collaborative Care Training on Case Managers' Perceived Depression-Related Services Delivery. Psychiatr Serv. 2017 Feb 1;68(2):123-130. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201500550. Epub 2016 Sep 15.

Ong MK, Jones L, Aoki W, Belin TR, Bromley E, Chung B, Dixon E, Johnson MD, Jones F, Koegel P, Khodyakov D, Landry CM, Lizaola E, Mtume N, Ngo VK, Perlman J, Pulido E, Sauer V, Sherbourne CD, Tang L, Vidaurri E, Whittington Y, Williams P, Lucas-Wright A, Zhang L, Southard M, Miranda J, Wells K. A Community-Partnered, Participatory, Cluster-Randomized Study of Depression Care Quality Improvement: Three-Year Outcomes. Psychiatr Serv. 2017 Dec 1;68(12):1262-1270. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201600488. Epub 2017 Jul 17.

Mehta P, Brown A, Chung B, Jones F, Tang L, Gilmore J, Miranda J, Wells K. Community Partners in Care: 6-Month Outcomes of Two Quality Improvement Depression Care Interventions in Male Participants. Ethn Dis. 2017 Jul 20;27(3):223-232. doi: 10.18865/ed.27.3.223. eCollection 2017 Summer.

Castillo EG, Shaner R, Tang L, Chung B, Jones F, Whittington Y, Miranda J, Wells KB. Improving Depression Care for Adults With Serious Mental Illness in Underresourced Areas: Community Coalitions Versus Technical Support. Psychiatr Serv. 2018 Feb 1;69(2):195-203. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201600514. Epub 2017 Oct 16.

Sherbourne CD, Aoki W, Belin TR, Bromley E, Chung B, Dixon E, Gilmore JM, Johnson MD, Jones F, Koegel P, Khodyakov D, Landry CM, Lizaola E, Mtume N, Ngo VK, Ong MK, Perlman J, Pulido E, Sauer V, Tang L, Whittington Y, Vidaurri E, Williams P, Lucas-Wright A, Zhang L, Miranda J, Jones L, Wells K. Comparative Effectiveness of Two Models of Depression Services Quality Improvement in Health and Community Sectors. Psychiatr Serv. 2017 Dec 1;68(12):1315-1320. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201700170. Epub 2017 Nov 1.

Springgate B, Tang L, Ong M, Aoki W, Chung B, Dixon E, Johnson MD, Jones F, Landry C, Lizaola E, Mtume N, Ngo VK, Pulido E, Sherbourne C, Wright AL, Whittington Y, Williams P, Zhang L, Miranda J, Belin T, Gilmore J, Jones L, Wells KB. Comparative Effectiveness of Coalitions Versus Technical Assistance for Depression Quality Improvement in Persons with Multiple Chronic Conditions. Ethn Dis. 2018 Sep 6;28(Suppl 2):325-338. doi: 10.18865/ed.28.S2.325. eCollection 2018.

Choi KR, Sherbourne C, Tang L, Castillo E, Dixon E, Jones A, Chung B, Eisen C, Wells K. A Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Depression Collaborative Care: Subanalysis of Comorbid Anxiety. West J Nurs Res. 2019 Jul;41(7):1009-1031. doi: 10.1177/0193945918800333. Epub 2018 Sep 18.

Chung B, Ong M, Ettner SL, Jones F, Gilmore J, McCreary M, Ngo VK, Sherbourne C, Tang L, Dixon E, Koegel P, Miranda J, Wells KB. 12-Month Cost Outcomes of Community Engagement Versus Technical Assistance for Depression Quality Improvement: A Partnered, Cluster Randomized, Comparative-Effectiveness Trial. Ethn Dis. 2018 Sep 6;28(Suppl 2):349-356. doi: 10.18865/ed.28.S2.349. eCollection 2018.

Arevian AC, Jones F, Tang L, Sherbourne CD, Jones L, Miranda J; Community Partners in Care Writing Group. Depression Remission From Community Coalitions Versus Individual Program Support for Services: Findings From Community Partners in Care, Los Angeles, California, 2010-2016. Am J Public Health. 2019 Jun;109(S3):S205-S213. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2019.305082.

Barceló NE, Lopez A, Tang L, Aguilera Nunez MG, Jones F, Miranda J, Chung B, Arevian A, Bonds C, Izquierdo A, Dixon E, Wells K. Community Engagement and Planning versus Resources for Services for Implementing Depression Quality Improvement: Exploratory Analysis for Black and Latino Adults. Ethn Dis. 2019 Apr 18;29(2):277-286. doi: 10.18865/ed.29.2.277. eCollection 2019 Spring.

Morton I, Hurley B, Castillo EG, Tang L, Gilmore J, Jones F, Watkins K, Chung B, Wells K. Outcomes of two quality improvement implementation interventions for depression services in adults with substance use problems. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2020;46(2):251-261. doi: 10.1080/00952990.2019.1708085. Epub 2020 Jan 14.

Other Publications:

Chung B, Jones L, Dixon EL, Miranda J, Wells K; Community Partners in Care Steering Council. Using a community partnered participatory research approach to implement a randomized controlled trial: planning community partners in care. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2010 Aug;21(3):780-95. doi: 10.1353/hpu.0.0345.

Khodyakov D, Mendel P, Dixon E, Jones A, Masongsong Z, Wells K. Community Partners in Care: Leveraging Community Diversity to Improve Depression Care for Underserved Populations. Int J Divers Organ Communities Nations. 2009;9(2):167-182.

Dixon EL, Flaskerud JH. Community tailored responses to depression care. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2010 Sep;31(9):611-3. doi: 10.3109/01612841003675303.

Mango J, Cabiling E, Jones L, Lucas-Wright A, Williams P, Wells K, Pulido E, Meldrum M, Ramos A, Chung B. Community Partners in Care (CPIC): Video Summary of Rationale, Study Approach / Implementation, and Client 6-month Outcomes. CES4healthinfo. 2014 Feb 25;2014. pii: 87LWR5H2.

Khodyakov D, Pulido E, Ramos A, Dixon E. Community-partnered research conference model: the experience of Community Partners in Care study. Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2014 Spring;8(1):83-97. doi: 10.1353/cpr.2014.0008.

Mendel P, Ngo VK, Dixon E, Stockdale S, Jones F, Chung B, Jones A, Masongsong Z, Khodyakov D. Partnered evaluation of a community engagement intervention: use of a kickoff conference in a randomized trial for depression care improvement in underserved communities. Ethn Dis. 2011 Summer;21(3 Suppl 1):S1-78-88.

Belin TR, Jones A, Tang L, Chung B, Stockdale SE, Jones F, Wright A, Sherbourne CD, Perlman J, Pulido E, Ong MK, Gilmore J, Miranda J, Dixon E, Jones L, Wells KB. Maintaining Internal Validity in Community Partnered Participatory Research: Experience from the Community Partners in Care Study. Ethn Dis. 2018 Sep 6;28(Suppl 2):357-364. doi: 10.18865/ed.28.S2.357. eCollection 2018.

Mendel P, O'Hora J, Zhang L, Stockdale S, Dixon EL, Gilmore J, Jones F, Jones A, Williams P, Sharif MZ, Masongsong Z, Kadkhoda F, Pulido E, Chung B, Wells KB. Engaging Community Networks to Improve Depression Services: A Cluster-Randomized Trial of a Community Engagement and Planning Intervention. Community Ment Health J. 2021 Apr;57(3):457-469. doi: 10.1007/s10597-020-00632-5. Epub 2020 May 19.

Goodsmith N, Zhang L, Ong MK, Ngo VK, Miranda J, Hirsch S, Jones F, Wells K, Chung B. Implementation of a Community-Partnered Research Suicide-Risk Management Protocol: Case Study From Community Partners in Care. Psychiatr Serv. 2021 Mar 1;72(3):281-287. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.202000095. Epub 2021 Jan 27.

• Responsible Party: RAND
• ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01699789
• Other Study ID Numbers: CPIC-2012-KW; R01MH078853 ( U.S. NIH Grant/Contract ); P30MH082760 ( U.S. NIH Grant/Contract ); P30MH068639 ( U.S. NIH Grant/Contract ); PPRN-1501-26518 ( Other Grant/Funding Number: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute ); R01MD007721 ( U.S. NIH Grant/Contract ); G08LM011058 ( U.S. NIH Grant/Contract ); UL1TR000124 ( U.S. NIH Grant/Contract ); 64244 ( Other Grant/Funding Number: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation )
• First Posted: October 4, 2012
• Results First Posted: November 17, 2014
• Last Update Posted: June 24, 2021
• Last Verified: June 2021

Keywords provided by RAND:

Community Partnered Participatory Research; Community Engagement; Implementation; Community Based Participatory Research; Quality Improvement; Evidence Based Practice; Patient Centered Outcomes Research

Additional relevant MeSH terms:

Depression; Behavioral Symptoms