CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,340Mental Health Treatment and AccessPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsTreatment of Major Depression

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 69 of the 70 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Collaborative Care for Depression: A Cumulative Meta-analysis and Review of Longer-term Outcomes

Gilbody, Simon·2006·Archives of Internal Medicine
DOI 10.1001/archinte.166.21.2314
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archinte.166.21.2314

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 70 references

1 of the 70 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 701–800 of 1,000

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Gilbody, S.
Affiliations
University of York (GB)
Corresponding author
Gilbody, Simon
ORCID
Gilbody, Simon
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2006-11-27
Volume
166
Issue
21
Pages
2314
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1001/archinte.166.21.2314
OpenAlex
W2069790930
Cited by
1,340
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 63 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 50 · 2018: 70 · 2017: 120 · 2016: 62 · 2015: 69 · 2014: 97 · 2013: 114 · 2012: 110
FWCI
76.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (submittedVersion)
  • Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Treatment of Major Depression
Keywords
collaborative care, depression, primary care, case managers, medication adherence, brief psychotherapy, long-term outcomes, usual care comparison, mechanism of action
MeSH terms
Cooperative Behavior, Depression, Depressive Disorder, Humans, Patient Care Team, Primary Health Care, Psychotherapy, Confidence Intervals, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Databases, Bibliographic, Treatment Outcome, Evidence-Based Medicine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review