Research ArticleOriginal Research

Effectiveness of Collaborative, Trauma-Informed Care on Depression Outcomes in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Control Trial in Chile

Verónica G. Vitriol, Alfredo Cancino, María de la Luz Aylwin, Soledad Ballesteros and Andrés F. Sciolla
The Annals of Family Medicine November 2024, 22 (6) 467-475; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.3184

Abstract

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of collaborative trauma-informed care (CTIC) for treating depression in primary care in Chile.

METHODS From August 2021 through June 2023, 16 primary care teams in the Maule Region of Chile, were randomly assigned to either the CTIC or usual treatment (UT) group. At baseline, 3 months, and 6 months, 115 patients in the CTIC group, and 99 in the UT group, were blindly evaluated. The primary outcome was reduction in depressive symptoms. Secondary outcomes included improvement in anxiety symptoms, interpersonal and social functioning, emotional regulation, and adherence. Intention-to-treat data analysis, using analysis of covariance was conducted.

RESULTS There were 214 patients recruited; 85% were women, and 61% had 4 or more adverse childhood experiences. At 6 months, depressive symptoms declined significantly in the CTIC arm relative to UT (adjusted mean difference [AMD]= −3.09, 95% CI, −4.94 to −1.23; d = −0.46, 95% CI,−0.73 to −0.18; P = .001). Anxiety symptoms exhibited a trend toward improvement in the CTIC vs UT group (AMD = −1.50, 95% CI, −3.03 to 0.31; P = .055). No significant differences were observed in other secondary outcomes, except for adherence, which was significantly higher in the CTIC vs UT groups (AMD = 2.59, 95% CI, 1.80-4.99; P = .035).

CONCLUSIONS The CTIC approach demonstrated superior outcomes in treating depression and improving adherence compared with UT. Moreover, the observed trends in anxiety improvement warrant further exploration in future research with a larger sample size. It is necessary to assess the effectiveness of this approach in treating more complex, difficult-to-treat forms of depression.

Key words:

BACKGROUND

In Chile, and globally, depression is a substantially disabling public health concern, disproportionately affecting women at twice the rate of men.1,2 Before the COVID-19 pandemic, studies indicated that 18.2% of Chilean adults experienced depressive symptoms, with 6.2% meeting the criteria for major depression.3-4 During the pandemic, depressive symptoms surged by 40.2%.5

Since 2006, Chile’s national mental health program has focused on depression, with primary care managing 90% of cases and referring individuals with actual suicidal conduct, suspected bipolar disorder, or signs of psychosis to specialists.6.7 Remission rates at primary care level are about 55%.8 Research indicates that one-half of the primary care patients exhibit a complex form of depression, characterized by comorbidities, suicide attempts, interpersonal difficulties, impaired social functioning, and adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), leading to worse outcomes.9,10 These patients receive minimal interventions, averaging just 2 medical and psychological sessions per year.10 This evidence highlights a critical gap in research and practice in Chilean primary care regarding the management of depression and its more complex presentations.11,12

The complex form of depression in Chilean primary care9-12 has characteristics similar to treatment-resistant depression (TRD), defined as an inadequate response to at least 2 antidepressants despite adequacy of the treatment trial and adherence to treatment.13 Treatment recommendations for TRD primarily involve pharmacotherapy.13,14 Experts recommend redefining TRD as difficult-to-treat depression (DTD) that requires a chronic care approach focused on symptom management and functional recovery.15,16 Trauma-informed care principles are also proposed because of the impact of trauma and socioeconomic factors on depression and suicidal tendencies.17-19

Both DTD and trauma-informed care approaches, support a collaborative care model for chronic diseases, which involves case managers, structured patient-centered approaches with scheduled follow-ups, and interprofessional communication.20,21 Implementing a training program for multidisciplinary teams, integrating a bio-psychosocial approach with trauma-informed care and collaborative care, is proposed to improve depression outcomes in primary care in Chile.

Our aim was to compare the effectiveness of collaborative trauma-informed care (CTIC) for depression vs usual treatment (UT) on clinical and functional outcomes in a cluster randomized clinical trial (RCT) deployed in primary care clinics in the Maule Region of Chile.

METHODS

Study Design

A single blind, 2-arm RCT was conducted from August 2021 through June 2023 in 16 primary care centers in the Maule Region of Chile. The trial protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Talca and registered in the clinical trial registration NCT05016388 (https://clinicaltrials.gov). The study (SAI200031) was funded by the Chilean National Research and Development Agency Health Research and Development Fund (ANID-FONIS).

The 16 primary care centers were matched by socioeconomic status and patient income and blindly randomized by 1 of the investigators (M.L.A.) using a pseudorandom algorithm in MATLAB (MathWorks, Inc). The centers were blindly assigned to the CTIC or UT group (Figure 1, Supplemental Appendix).

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Flowchart of recruitment process.

CTIC = collaborative trauma-informed care; UT = usual treatment.

aThe 16 centers were coded with letters A-P, then randomly assigned to the intervention (A, C, G, H, I, K, M, O) and control groups (B, D, E, F, J, L, N, P).

bThe center coded C did not continue to use CTIC procedures after the study.

cNumber of intervention participants by center code was A 13, C 0, G 23, H 18, I 15, K 13, M 10, O 23.

dNumber of control participants by center code was B 14, D 26, E 19, F 9, J 14, L 8, N 9, P 3.

Study Groups

The CTIC teams comprised of a physician, psychologist, and social worker received 27 hours of training on the CTIC approach (intervention), emphasizing trauma-informed care and DTD,19,22,23,24 while respecting current clinical guidelines. (Table 1, Supplemental Appendix). The training was conducted by V.G.V., A.C., and A.F.S. After training, teams applied the model with a case manager, personalized patient interviews, validated self-report instruments, and monthly psychiatrist supervision for 3 months (Figure 2, Supplemental Appendix).

View this table:
Table 1.

CTIC Training for the Treatment of Depression in Primary Care

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Collaborative trauma-informed care for treating depression in primary care.

CTIC = collaborative trauma-informed care.

The UT group primary care professionals received 27 hours of training on UT (control), conducted by Jorge Calvo, MD and Antonio Arellano, MD on the current Depression Treatment Guidelines6 (Supplemental Appendix).

Participants

Considering previous studies, a difference of 20% between arms, an α level of 5%, a power of 80%, a confidence level of 95%, and a maximum variance of 50%, an initial sample of 394 patients from 8 clinics was calculated10,25,26 (Supplemental Appendix). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, however, the number of centers was adjusted to 16.

Adults aged 18 to 70 years admitted for treatment of depression in primary care clinics of the Maule Region with a confirmed diagnosis of depression, according to the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI),27 were included in the study. Those with sensory disabilities, no access to a telephone, who had been referred to a specialist level, or were unable or unwilling to sign the informed consent, were excluded from the study.

Procedures

At each clinic, a member of the primary care team recruited study participants who provided written informed consent. These participants were then referred to 2 psychologists (Marcela Ormazábal, BS, S.B.) who were kept unaware of the patients’ assigned group and allocated them to an external evaluation team made up of 10 psychiatry residents. A protocol for managing emergency cases was established (Supplemental Appendix).

The residents received a 4-hour training session on data standardization and were supervised by Marcela Ormazábal, BS and S.B. The participants were evaluated at the time of inclusion using a semi-structured clinical interview, the ACEs inventory,28 the MINI,27 and a set of instruments to assess outcomes at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months.

Primary Outcome

Depressive symptoms were assessed using the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), validated in Chile, with scores ranging from 0 to 27. A score of 7 or higher indicates the presence of depressive symptoms.9,29,30

Secondary Outcomes

Anxiety symptoms were evaluated using the Spanish version of the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7). Scores range from 0 to 21. Scores of 10 points or more indicate anxiety symptoms.31

Emotional regulation was evaluated through the Spanish validated version of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS), with scores ranging from 0 to 140 points. Scores of 73 points or more indicate emotional deregulation symptoms.32

Interpersonal and social functioning was evaluated with the interpersonal and social role subscales included in the validated Outcome Questionnaire 45 (OQ45). The interpersonal subscale ranges from 0 to 48, with scores of 16 points or more indicating interpersonal dysfunction. The social subscale ranges from 0 to 36 points, with scores of 14 points or more indicating social role dysfunction.33

Therapeutic adherence was measured at 3 and 6 months using a brief version of the General Health Adherence Scale (GHAS), consisting of 12 items with scores ranging from 0 to 36. This self-report scale assesses general attitudes and behaviors toward treatment as a whole. Scores below 24 indicate low adherence, scores between 25 and 30 indicate moderate adherence, and scores above 31 indicate high adherence. This scale was previously validated in Chile.34

The data collected from the instruments at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months was entered into a secure virtual worksheet hosted on the website https://www.surveymonkey.com/ (Momentive Global).

Statistical Analysis

We performed intention-to-treat analyses for all clinical outcomes using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines for RCTs.35

We analyzed the primary and secondary outcomes after the 6 month follow-up using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) controlling for the individual baseline values for each outcome. Two assumptions of the ANCOVA were tested; the absence of differences between groups in the baseline data, and the homogeneity of regression for baseline and 6 months follow-up data. Before running the ANCOVA, we evaluated the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for each outcome, at baseline and 6 months, except for adherence, which was evaluated at 3 and 6 months follow-up. The ICC was estimated as the between subject variance divided by the total (between plus within subject) variance from the analysis of variance (ANOVA). The effect size we calculated using the Cohen’s d measure and its 95% CI.

The entire statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS version 21 (IBM Corp) and jamovi version 2.5 (The jamovi project 2024) following a predefined analysis plan. For sensitivity analysis, missing data were addressed through imputation based on the Last Observation Carried Forward method. There were no significant baseline differences in missing data between the 2 groups or between those retained.

RESULTS

Participant Flow and Retention

We invited 20 primary health care centers, of which 16 participated; 8 were trained in CTIC and 8 in UT. Seven centers continued their operation according to CTIC protocol (Figure 2). The CTIC groups reported a mean of 16.4 participants and a variance of 23.6, compared with UT centers with a mean of 14.1 participants and a variance of 42.9.

We recruited 214 patients; 115 in the CTIC group, and 99 in the UT group. At the 3-month follow-up, data were collected from 81% of the CTIC group and 70% of the UT group (Z = 1.26, P = .87). At the 6-month follow-up, data were collected from 70% of the CTIC group and 61% of the UT group (Z = 1.17, P = .20; Figure 1). At least 87% of the sample had more than 1 evaluation (91% in the CTIC group and 82% in the UT group, Z = 8.83, P <.01).

Five emergency situations were detected and satisfactorily resolved.

Baseline Characteristics of Participants

The majority of the participants were women (182 of 214; 85%), with a mean age of 40.1 years (SD 13.5) for the CTIC group and 40.2 years (SD 15.8) for UT group. Table 2 shows sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Both groups were similar in all aspects, demonstrating homogeneity between the groups at baseline.

View this table:
Table 2.

Baseline Clinical and Sociodemographic Characteristics of Participants (N = 214)

Primary Outcome

We observed a significant decrease in PHQ-9 scores over time; in both the CTIC and UT groups, (η2 = 0.3, P <.001). The CTIC group’s scores decreased from a mean (SD) of 17.1 (5.7) at baseline to 8.9 (6.6) at 6 months, while the UT group’s scores dropped from 17.3 (6.1) to 12.2 (8.1) (Table 3). A significant difference in depressive symptoms between the groups over time was found (η2 = 0.049, P <.01; Table 3). The CTIC group showed an improvement at 6 months (adjusted mean difference [AMD] = −3.09, 95% CI, −4.94 to −1.23; d = −0.46, 95% CI, −0.73 to −0.18; P = .001), with an ICC at baseline of 0.06 that increased to 0.10 at 6 months follow-up, in agreement with a decrease in the depressive symptoms (Table 4).

View this table:
Table 3.

Longitudinal Assessment Intervention vs Control Groups at Baseline, 3 Months, and 6 Months

View this table:
Table 4.

Comparative ITT Analysis of Intervention vs Control Groups: Impact on Outcomes and Adherence at 6 Months

At 6 months, 62 of 115 patients (54%) in the CTIC group showed remission, compared with 34 of 99 patients (34%) in the UT group (OR = 2.24; 95% CI, 1.58-3.20).

Secondary Outcome

Both groups showed improvement in all measured variables: anxiety symptoms (η2 = 0.14, P <.001), interpersonal functioning (η2 = 0.07, P <.001), social role (η2 = 0.05, P <.001), and emotional regulation (η2 = 0.17, P <.001). No significant differences between time and group were observed in these outcomes (Table 3), and the intracluster analysis indicated no differences between centers (Table 4). The statistical analysis showed that the effects of the intervention did not extend to the secondary outcomes (Table 4).

Interestingly, the adherence scale to treatment in participants from the CTIC group was 2.5 points higher (95% CI, 1.8 to 4.99; P = .035) at 6 months. In this scale, the ICC = 0.10 at 3 months and increased to 0.11 at 6 months, suggesting differences between the different centers included in the groups.

DISCUSSION

This clinical trial is an innovative effort that demonstrates the effectiveness of an educational program for improving depression outcomes, by integrating a multidimensional approach with a trauma-informed care perspective. Despite enrolling only 214 participants (54% of the planned sample size of 394) due to difficulty recruiting patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, the effect size (d = −0.46) for depressive symptom improvement of was consistent with comparable studies.36-39

The study population, mostly women with moderate to severe depressive symptoms, high anxiety comorbidity, and elevated ACEs rates, aligns with pre-pandemic Chilean studies.10, 40-45 In a study, conducted in the same disadvantaged region,45 remission rates were 43% at 6 months and 52% at 1 year.10 With the onset of the pandemic, primary care shifted its focus toward emerging health issues, overshadowing adult mental health,46 which contributed to challenges in recruitment of adult patients with depression, increased variability of inpatient admissions (particularly in the UT group), and contributed to only a 34% remission rate in the UT group. In contrast, CTIC teams achieved a 54% remission rate at 6 months, matching the 12-month rate observed in an earlier study.10 This 20% difference highlights the potential efficacy of the CTIC approach in the post-emergent COVID-19 pandemic period. Likely, primary care teams in the UT group lacked the comprehensive assessment tools and psychosocial recommendations emphasized by the intervention team, enabling those within the CTIC framework to more effectively manage adult depression under the circumstances.47,48

The improvement in the general adherence scale within the CTIC group compared with the UT group at 6 months is significant, albeit with a small size effect. This finding warrants further investigation into the specific factors within each primary care team that influenced their success or shortcomings. Additionally, both groups demonstrated high follow-up rates, exceeding 80%, underscoring the feasibility of our study and the reliability of the data collected. Notably, the CTIC group exhibited greater adherence to blind follow-ups, likely attributed to the more effective patient management and engagement strategies of the CTIC approach.

Our intervention, based on trauma-informed care,19,22-24 highlights the relevance of including a sensitive inquiry about any adverse biographical history in the patient’s multidimensional evaluation, and in the structure of the treatment and follow-up sessions that establish a safe patient-care team relationship.19,22-24 This approach aligns with what is proposed by authors who emphasize the critical role of ACEs in diagnosis, treatment, and education.49-51 Moreover, it underscores the importance of integrating psychotherapy with pharmacotherapy to treat DTD, consistent with several studies.52-54 These crucial aspects have not been fully integrated into current practices or treatment recommendations, as evidenced in a Latin American consensus guideline that predominantly emphasizes biomedical approaches, and excludes psychotherapy from their treatment protocol.14

Regarding the secondary outcomes, we noticed a trend toward improvement in anxiety; however, statistical significance was not reached. Existing evidence suggests that the resolution of anxiety in depression in primary care typically occurs later in the course of treatment.55,56 Furthermore, the gradual decrease in both depressive and anxiety symptoms, especially within the CTIC group over time, may be linked to a greater integration of the model by the teams, potentially yielding improved results with a longer follow-up time.

Moreover, there were no significant differences between groups in interpersonal difficulties and emotional regulation. The CTIC treatment takes a generalized training approach, focusing on non-specific competencies within primary care teams for managing mental health disorders. To effectively address interpersonal and emotional deregulation in patients with complex depression, primary care professionals may need to acquire specific skills, as emphasized in a recent training program for psychologists.57

This study had several limitations, including a gender imbalance with a majority of female participants, and the potential negative impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic on depression treatment in the UT arm. In addition, specific interventions in both study groups, such as number of physicians in each team, type and frequency of psychological interventions, and use of psychotropic medication, were not accounted for. A second analysis is necessary to evaluate the specificity of this intervention in patients exhibiting the characteristics of complex DTD. Thus, additional studies should address the feasibility and acceptability of CTIC implementation in different contexts.

In summary, this pioneering study represents a groundbreaking initiative for managing depression in primary care in Chile. The CTIC treatment addresses often neglected aspects with a flexible design, allowing various professionals to acquire essential skills while emphasizing interprofessional collaboration. Moving forward, it is essential to continue generating evidence to inform decision-making processes and the incorporation of skills aimed at recognizing and managing prevalent variables in depression, which are typically excluded from clinical practice. The comprehensive approach of CTIC should contribute to ongoing improvements in mental health services within primary care settings.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to Dr Jorge Calvo, Antonio Arellano, Sergio Guiñez-Molinos, and Johanna Kreither for their invaluable collaboration in the capacitation process. We also extend our appreciation to Marcela Ormazábal for her assistance in the recruitment process of patients. Our sincere thanks go out to the Health Secretaries of the Municipalities of Curicó, Constitución, Linares, Pelarco, Romeral, Sagrada Familia, and Talca, as well as all the mental health teams and directors of the primary care clinics who played a crucial role in this project. Special thanks also to Carmen Gloria Blanco for her exceptional project management assistance.

Footnotes

  • Received for publication February 2, 2024.
  • Revision received August 5, 2024.
  • Accepted for publication August 14, 2024.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. World Health Organization
    . Depressive disorder (depression). https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/depression
  2. 2.↵
    1. Salvo GL.
    Magnitud, impacto y estrategias de enfrentamiento de la depresión, con referencia a Chile. Rev Med Chil. 2014; 142(9): 1157-1164. doi:10.4067/S0034-98872014000900010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. COES (Center for Conflict and Social Cohesion Studies)
    . First wave results. Published 2019. www.elsoc.cl/publicaciones
  4. 4.↵
  5. 5.↵
    1. Celis-Morales C,
    2. Nazar G.
    Cambios en la prevalencia de depresión en Chile y el mundo debido a la pandemia por COVID-19. Rev Med Chil. 2022; 150(5): 691-692. doi:10.4067/s0034-98872022000500691
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Ministerio de Salud
    . Depresión en personas de 15 años y más, Serie Guías Clínicas, Minsal 2013. www.repositoriodigital.minsal.cl/handle/2015/515
  7. 7.↵
    1. Araya R,
    2. Alvarado R,
    3. Sepúlveda R,
    4. Rojas G.
    Lessons from scaling up a depression treatment program in primary care in Chile. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2012; 32(3): 234-240. doi:10.1590/s1020-49892012000900009
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Vitriol V,
    2. Cancino A,
    3. Serrano C,
    4. Ballesteros S,
    5. Potthoff S.
    Remission in depression and associated factors at different assessment times in primary care in Chile. Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health. 2018; 14: 78-88. doi:10.2174/1745017901814010078
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Vitriol V,
    2. Cancino A,
    3. Serrano C, et al.
    Latent class analysis in depression, including clinical and functional variables: evidence of a complex depressive subtype in primary care in Chile. Depress Res Treat. 2021; 2021: 6629403. doi:10.1155/2021/6629403
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Vitriol V,
    2. Cancino A,
    3. Bustamante C,
    4. Aylwin ML.
    Evolution of depressive symptoms among depression subtypes of clinical and functional variables in primary care in Chile. J Prim Care Community Health. 2024; 15: 21501319241241476. doi:10.1177/21501319241241476
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. de la Parra G,
    2. Dagnino P,
    3. Behn A
    1. de la Parra G,
    2. Zúñiga AK,
    3. Dagnino P,
    4. Gómez-Barris E.
    Complex depression in high-pressure care settings: strategies and therapeutic competences. In: de la Parra G, Dagnino P, Behn A, eds. Depression and Personality Dysfunction: An Integrative Functional Domains Perspective. Springer International Publishing; 2021: 213-244.
  12. 12.↵
    1. Martínez P,
    2. Gloger S,
    3. Diez de Medina D,
    4. González A,
    5. Carrasco MI,
    6. Vöhringer PA.
    [Systematic review of treatment alternatives for depressed adults with early adverse stress]. Rev Med Chil. 2021; 149(10): 1473-1484. doi:10.4067/s0034-98872021001001473
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. McIntyre RS,
    2. Alsuwaidan M,
    3. Baune BT, et al.
    Treatment-resistant depression: definition, prevalence, detection, management, and investigational interventions. World Psychiatry. 2023; 22(3): 394-412. doi:10.1002/wps.21120
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Corral R,
    2. Bojórquez E,
    3. Cetkovich-Bakmas M, et al.
    Latin American consensus recommendations for the management and treatment of patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Spanish Journal of Psychiatry and Mental Health. Published Sep 22, 2023. doi:10.1016/j.sjpmh.2023.06.001
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. 15.↵
    1. McAllister-Williams RH,
    2. Arango C,
    3. Blier P, et al.
    The identification, assessment and management of difficult-to-treat depression: an international consensus statement. J Affect Disord. 2020; 267: 264-282. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2020.02.023
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Kupfer DJ,
    2. Charney DS.
    “Difficult-to-treat depression”. Biological Psychiatry. 2003/04/15/2003; 53(8): 633-634. doi:10.1016/S0006-3223(03)00188-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Mladen SN,
    2. Williams AB,
    3. Griffin SC,
    4. Perrin PB,
    5. Rybarczyk BD.
    Models of trauma exposure, depression, and suicidality in safety-net primary care. J Trauma Stress. 2021; 34(6): 1139-1148. doi:10.1002/jts.22658
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.
    1. Lathan EC,
    2. Selwyn CN,
    3. Langhinrichsen-Rohling J.
    The “3 Es” of trauma-informed care in a federally qualified health center: traumatic event- and experience-related predictors of physical and mental health effects among female patients. J Community Psychol. 2021; 49(2): 703-724. doi:10.1002/jcop.22488
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Vitriol V,
    2. Sciolla A,
    3. Alfredo C,
    4. Contreras F.
    Cuidado informado en trauma: un modelo emergente para el abordaje del subtipo depresivo con historia de adversidad infantil. Rev Chil Neuro-psiquiatr. 2020; 58(4): 348-362. doi:10.4067/S0717-92272020000400348
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. 20.↵
    1. Wagner EH,
    2. Austin BT,
    3. Von Korff M.
    Organizing care for patients with chronic illness. Milbank Q. 1996; 74(4): 511-544.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Archer J,
    2. Bower P,
    3. Gilbody S, et al.
    Collaborative care for depression and anxiety problems. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 10: CD006525. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006525.pub2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Eckstrand KL,
    2. Potter J
    1. Sciolla AF.
    An Overview of Trauma-Informed Care. In: Eckstrand KL, Potter J, eds. Trauma, Resilience, and Health Promotion in LGBT Patients: What Every Healthcare Provider Should Know. Springer International Publishing; 2017: 165-181.
  23. 23.↵
    1. Raja S,
    2. Hasnain M,
    3. Hoersch M,
    4. Gove-Yin S,
    5. Rajagopalan C.
    Trauma informed care in medicine: current knowledge and future research directions. Fam Community Health. 2015; 38(3): 216-226. doi:10.1097/fch.0000000000000071
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Peckham H.
    Introducing the Neuroplastic Narrative: a non-pathologizing biological foundation for trauma-informed and adverse childhood experience aware approaches. Front Psychiatry. 2023; 14: 1103718. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1103718
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Fritsch R,
    2. Araya R,
    3. Solís J,
    4. Montt E,
    5. Pilowsky D,
    6. Rojas G.
    Un ensayo clínico aleatorizado de farmacoterapia con monitorización telefónica para mejorar el tratamiento de la depresión en la atención primaria en Santiago, Chile. Rev Med Chil. 2007; 135(5): 587-595. doi:10.4067/S0034-98872007000500006
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Rojas G,
    2. Martínez P,
    3. Vöhringer PA,
    4. Martínez V,
    5. Castro-Lara A,
    6. Fritsch R.
    Comprehensive technology-assisted training and supervision program to enhance depression management in primary care in Santiago, Chile: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2015; 16: 311. doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0845-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Lecrubier Y,
    2. Sheehan DV,
    3. Weiller E, et al.
    The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI): A short diagnostic structured interview: reliability and validity according to the CIDI. Eur Psychiatry. 1997; 12(5): 224-231. doi:10.1016/S0924-9338(97)83296-8
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. 28.↵
    1. Felitti VJ,
    2. Anda RF,
    3. Nordenberg D, et al.
    Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. Am J Prev Med. 1998; 14(4): 245-258. doi:10.1016/s0749-3797(98)00017-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Saldivia S,
    2. Aslan J,
    3. Cova F,
    4. Vicente B,
    5. Inostroza C,
    6. Rincón P.
    Propiedades psicométricas del PHQ-9 (Patient Health Questionnaire) en centros de atención primaria de Chile. Rev Med Chil. 2019; 147(1): 53-60. doi:10.4067/S0034-98872019000100053
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Baader MT,
    2. Molina FJL,
    3. Venezian BS, et al.
    Validación y utilidad de la encuesta PHQ-9 (Patient Health Questionnaire) en el diagnóstico de depresión en pacientes usuarios de atención primaria en Chile. Rev Chil Neuro-psiquiatr. 2012; 50(1): 10-22. doi:10.4067/S0717-92272012000100002
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  31. 31.↵
    1. García-Campayo J,
    2. Zamorano E,
    3. Ruiz MA, et al.
    Cultural adaptation into Spanish of the generalized anxiety disorder-7 (GAD-7) scale as a screening tool. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010; 8: 8. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-8-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Guzmán-González M,
    2. Mendoza-Llanos R,
    3. Garrido-Rojas L,
    4. Barrientos J,
    5. Urzúa A.
    [Cut-off points of the difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale for the Chilean population]. Rev Med Chil. May 2020; 148(5): 644-652. Propuesta de valores de referencia para la Escala de Dificultades de Regulación Emocional (DERS-E) en población adulta chilena. doi:10.4067/s0034-98872020000500644
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. von Bergen A,
    2. de la Parra G.
    OQ-45.2, Cuestionario para evaluación de resultados y evolución en psicoterapia: Adaptación, validación e indicaciones para su aplicación e interpretación. [OQ-45.2, An outcome questionnaire for monitoring change in psychotherapy: adaptation, validation and indications for its application and interpretation.]. Ter Psicol. 2002; 20(2): 161-176.
    OpenUrl
  34. 34.↵
    1. Corder Medel R.
    Universidad del Talca,Chile. Construcción and validación de los escalas de adherencia a tratmientos de salud. http://dspace.utalca.cl/bitstream/1950/10596/2/cordero_medel.pdf
  35. 35.↵
    1. Schulz KF,
    2. Altman DG,
    3. Moher D; CONSORT Group
    . CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med. 2010; 8: 18. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-8-18
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. van Ginneken N,
    2. Chin WY,
    3. Lim YC, et al.
    Primary-level worker interventions for the care of people living with mental disorders and distress in low- and middle-income countries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021; 8(8): CD009149. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009149.pub3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.
    1. Zhang A,
    2. Borhneimer LA,
    3. Weaver A, et al.
    Cognitive behavioral therapy for primary care depression and anxiety: a secondary meta-analytic review using robust variance estimation in meta-regression. J Behav Med. 2019; 42(6): 1117-1141. doi:10.1007/s10865-019-00046-z
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.
    1. Arroll B,
    2. Chin WY,
    3. Martis W, et al.
    Antidepressants for treatment of depression in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prim Health Care. 2016; 8(4): 325-334. doi:10.1071/hc16008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Ijaz S,
    2. Davies P,
    3. Williams CJ,
    4. Kessler D,
    5. Lewis G,
    6. Wiles N.
    Psychological therapies for treatment-resistant depression in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018; 5(5): CD010558. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010558.pub2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Vitriol V,
    2. Cancino A,
    3. Weil K,
    4. Salgado C,
    5. Asenjo MA,
    6. Potthoff S.
    Depression and psychological trauma: an overview integrating current research and specific evidence of studies in the treatment of depression in public mental health services in chile. Depress Res Treat. 2014; 2014: 608671. doi:10.1155/2014/608671
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.
    1. Vitriol V,
    2. Cancino A,
    3. Leiva-Bianchi M, et al.
    [Association between adverse childhood experiences with depression in adults consulting in primary care]. Rev Med Chil. 2017; 145(9): 1145-1153. doi:10.4067/s0034-98872017000901145
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.
    1. Cancino A,
    2. Leiva-Bianchi M,
    3. Serrano C,
    4. Ballesteros-Teuber S,
    5. Caceres C,
    6. Vitriol V.
    Factors associated with psychiatric comorbidity in depression patients in primary health care in Chile. Depression Research and Treatment. 2018; 2018: 9.1701978. doi:10.1155/2018/1701978
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  43. 43.
    1. Vitriol V,
    2. Cancino A,
    3. Leiva-Bianchi M, et al.
    Childhood trauma and psychiatric comorbidities in patients with depressive disorder in primary care in Chile. J Trauma Dissociation. 2017; 18(2): 189-205. doi:10.1080/15299732.2016.1212449
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.
    1. Gloger S,
    2. Vöhringer PA,
    3. Martínez P, et al.
    The contribution of early adverse stress to complex and severe depression in depressed outpatients. Depress Anxiety. 2021; 38(4): 431-438. doi:10.1002/da.23144
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Gloger S,
    2. Martínez P,
    3. Behn A, et al.
    Population-attributable risk of adverse childhood experiences for high suicide risk, psychiatric admissions, and recurrent depression, in depressed outpatients. Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2021; 12(1): 1874600. doi:10.1080/20008198.2021.1874600
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Toro-Devia O,
    2. Solis-Araya C,
    3. Soto-Brandt G, et al.
    Adverse sequelae of the COVID -19 pandemic on mental health services in Chile. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2023; 47: e87. doi:10.26633/rpsp.2023.87
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Xia J,
    2. Zhu L,
    3. Huang H, et al.
    Relationships between childhood trauma and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: a network analysis. Front Psychiatry. 2023; 14: 1251473. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1251473
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    1. Maestre Maroto MA.
    [Resilience as a predictor of the negative impact (depression, anxiety and stress) of COVID-19 in primary care physicians]. Semergen. Oct 2022; 48(7): 101813. La resiliencia como predictora del impacto negativo (depresión, ansiedad y estrés) del COVID-19 en médicos de atención primaria. doi:10.1016/j.semerg.2022.101813
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    1. Lippard ETC,
    2. Nemeroff CB.
    The devastating clinical consequences of child abuse and neglect: increased disease vulnerability and poor treatment response in mood disorders. Am J Psychiatry. 2020; 177(1): 20-36. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19010020
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.
    1. van der Kolk B.
    Commentary: The devastating effects of ignoring child maltreatment in psychiatry—a commentary on Teicher and Samson 2016. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2016; 57(3): 267-270. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12540
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    1. Teicher MH,
    2. Gordon JB,
    3. Nemeroff CB.
    Recognizing the importance of childhood maltreatment as a critical factor in psychiatric diagnoses, treatment, research, prevention, and education. Mol Psychiatry. 2022; 27(3): 1331-1338. doi:10.1038/s41380-021-01367-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    1. Childhood Trauma Meta-Analysis Study Group
    . Treatment efficacy and effectiveness in adults with major depressive disorder and childhood trauma history: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Psychiatry. 2022; 9(11): 860-873. doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(22)00227-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.
    1. Talbot A,
    2. Lee C,
    3. Ryan S,
    4. Roberts N,
    5. Mahtani KR,
    6. Albury C.
    Experiences of treatment-resistant mental health conditions in primary care: a systematic review and thematic synthesis. BMC Prim Care. 2022; 23(1): 207. doi:10.1186/s12875-022-01819-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    1. Minelli A,
    2. Zampieri E,
    3. Sacco C, et al.
    Clinical efficacy of trauma-focused psychotherapies in treatment-resistant depression (TRD) in-patients: a randomized, controlled pilot-study. Psychiatry Res. 2019; 273: 567-574. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2019.01.070
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    1. Tiller JW.
    Depression and anxiety. Med J Aust. 2013; 199(S6): S28-S31. doi:10.5694/mja12.10628
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    1. Hirschfeld RM.
    The Comorbidity of major depression and anxiety disorders: recognition and management in primary care. Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry. 2001; 3(6): 244-254. doi:10.4088/pcc.v03n0609
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    1. De la Parra G,
    2. Zuñiga AK,
    3. Crempien C, et al.
    Delphi-validation of a Psychotherapeutic Competencies Training Protocol (PCTP) for the treatment of depression in primary care: evidence-based practice and practice-based evidence (Validación Delphi de un Protocolo de Entrenamiento en Competencias Psicoterapéuticas (PECP) para el tratamiento de la depresión en atención primaria: práctica basada en la evidencia y evidencia basada en la práctica). Stud in Psychology. 2022;43(3):546-582. doi:10.1080/02109395.2022.2127239
    OpenUrlCrossRef
View Abstract
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Get Permissions

Jump to section

Subjects

Keywords