A Multifaceted Intervention to Improve Treatment of Depression in Primary Care
Abstract
Background This research study evaluates the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention program to improve the management of depression in primary care. Methods One hundred fifty-three primary care patients with current depression were entered into a randomized controlled trial. Intervention patients received a structured depression treatment program in the primary care setting that included both behavioral treatment to increase use of adaptive coping strategies and counseling to improve medication adherence. Control patients received "usual" care by their primary care physicians. Outcome measures included adherence to antidepressant medication, satisfaction with care of depression and with antidepressant treatment, and reduction of depressive symptoms over time. Results At 4-month follow-up, significantly more intervention patients with major and minor depression than usual care patients adhered to antidepressant medication and rated the quality of care they received for depression as good to excellent. Intervention patients with major depression demonstrated a significantly greater decrease in depression severity over time compared with usual care patients on all 4 outcome analyses. Intervention patients with minor depression were found to have a significant decrease over time in depression severity on only 1 of 4 study outcome analyses compared with usual care patients. Conclusion A multifaceted primary care intervention improved adherence to antidepressant regimens and…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The SCL-20 has been used as an outcome measure in primary care clinical trials, although published evidence on its sensitivity to change as well as other psychometric characteristics is limited.
“The SCL-20 has been used as an outcome measure in primary care clinical trials,18–20 although published evidence on its sensitivity to change as well as other psychometric characteristics”
From The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure (2001) · cites this paper as [18]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 34 · Cited by 835
- Authors
- Katon, W.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Katon, Wayne
- Venue
- Archives of General Psychiatry
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1996-10-01
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 924
- ISSN
- 0003-990X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2059578949
- Cited by
- 835
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 24
- FWCI
- 32.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Archives of General Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (MH4-1739)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
- Keywords
- depression, primary care, behavior therapy, coping strategies, patient satisfaction, depressive symptoms, major depressive disorder, minor depression, multicomponent intervention, usual care
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Antidepressive Agents, Behavior Therapy, Combined Modality Therapy, Counseling, Depressive Disorder, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Health Maintenance Organizations, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Compliance, Primary Health Care, Psychotherapy, Quality of Health Care, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction
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
