Collaborative care for depression - A cumulative meta-analysis and review of longer-term outcomes
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 26 November 2006
- journal article
- review article
- Published by American Medical Association (AMA) in Archives of Internal Medicine
- Vol. 166 (21), 2314-2321
- https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.21.2314
Abstract
Background: Depression is common in primary care but is suboptimally managed. Collaborative care, that is, structured care involving a greater role of nonmedical specialists to augment primary care, has emerged as a potentially effective candidate intervention to improve quality of primary care and patient outcomes. Methods: To quantify the short-term and longer-term effectiveness of collaborative care compared with standard care and to understand mechanisms of action by exploring between-study heterogeneity, we conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials that compared collaborative care with usual primary care in patients with depression. We searched MEDLINE ( from the beginning of 1966), EMBASE ( from the beginning of 1980), CINAHL ( from the beginning of 1980), PsycINFO ( from the beginning of 1980), the Cochrane Library ( from the beginning of 1966), and DARE ( Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness) ( from the beginning of 1985) databases from study inception to February 6, 2006. Results: We found 37 randomized studies including 12 355 patients with depression receiving primary care. Random effects meta-analysis showed that depression outcomes were improved at 6 months ( standardized mean difference, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.32), and evidence of longer-term benefit was found for up to 5 years ( standardized mean difference, 0.15;95% confidence interval, 0.001-0.31). When exploring determinants of effectiveness, effect size was directly related to medication compliance and to the professional background and method of supervision of case managers. The addition of brief psychotherapy did not substantially improve outcome, nor did increased numbers of sessions. Cumulative meta-analysis showed that sufficient evidence had emerged by 2000 to demonstrate the statistically significant benefit of collaborative care. Conclusions: Collaborative care is more effective than standard care in improving depression outcomes in the short and longer terms. Future research needs to address the implementation of collaborative care, particularly in settings other than the United States.This publication has 14 references indexed in Scilit:
- Costs and consequences of enhanced primary care for depressionThe British Journal of Psychiatry, 2006
- Patterns of intra-cluster correlation from primary care research to inform study design and analysisJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2004
- Going to Scale: Re-Engineering Systems for Primary Care Treatment of DepressionAnnals of Family Medicine, 2004
- The impact of a pharmacist intervention on 6-month outcomes in depressed primary care patientsGeneral Hospital Psychiatry, 2004
- Disease Management for Depression and At-Risk Drinking Via Telephone in an Older Population of VeteransPsychosomatic Medicine, 2003
- Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysesBMJ, 2003
- Issues in the meta‐analysis of cluster randomized trialsStatistics in Medicine, 2002
- How should meta‐regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?Statistics in Medicine, 2002
- A cluster randomized trial comparing two interventions to improve treatment of major depression in primary carePsychological Medicine, 1999
- The effect of primary care nurse intervention upon older people screened as depressedInternational Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 1995