Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 225

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Five-Year Impact of Quality Improvement for Depression: Results of a Group-Level Randomized Controlled Trial

Wells, Kenneth, Sherbourne, Cathy, Schoenbaum, Michael, Ettner, Susan, Duan, Naihua, Miranda, Jeanne, Unützer, Jürgen, Rubenstein, Lisa·2004·Archives of General Psychiatry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement (QI) programs for depressed primary care patients can improve health outcomes for 6 to 28 months; effects for longer than 28 months are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess how QI for depression affects health outcomes, quality of care, and health outcome disparities at 57-month follow-up. DESIGN: A group-level randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Forty-six primary care practices in 6 managed care organizations. PATIENTS: Of 1356 primary care patients who screened positive for depression and enrolled in the trial, 991 (73%, including 451 Latinos and African Americans) completed 57-month telephone follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: Clinics were randomly assigned to usual care or to 1 of 2 QI programs supporting QI teams, provider training, nurse assessment, and patient education, plus resources to support medication management (QI-meds) or psychotherapy (QI-therapy) for 6 to 12 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Probable depressive disorder in the previous 6 months, mental health-related quality of life in the previous 30 days, primary care or mental health specialty visits, counseling or antidepressant medications in the previous 6 months, and unmet need, defined as depressed but not receiving appropriate care. RESULTS: Combined QI-meds and QI-therapy, relative to usual care, reduced the percentage of participants with probable disorder at 5 years by 6.6 percentage points (P =.04). QI-therapy improved health outcomes and reduced unmet need for appropriate care among Latinos and African Americans combined but provided few long-term benefits among whites, reducing outcome disparities related to usual care (P =.04 for QI-ethnicity interaction for probable depressive disorder). CONCLUSIONS: Programs for QI for depressed primary care patients implemented by managed care practices can improve health outcomes 5 years after implementation and reduce health outcome disparities by markedly improving health outcomes and unmet need for appropriate care among Latinos and African Americans relative to whites; thus, equity was improved in the long run.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archpsyc.61.4.378

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 16 references

Cited by

See all 225

Metadata

Authors
Wells, K., Sherbourne, C., Schoenbaum, M., Ettner, S., Duan, N., Miranda, J., Unützer, J., & Rubenstein, L.
Venue
Archives of General Psychiatry
Published
2004-04-01
Volume
61
Issue
4
Pages
378
ISSN
0003-990X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2095718914
Cited by
225
References
16
FWCI
29.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Five-Year Impact of Quality Improvement for Depression: Results of a Group-Level Randomized Controlled Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archpsyc.61.4.378
The paper
Wells, K., Sherbourne, C., Schoenbaum, M., Ettner, S., Duan, N., Miranda, J., Unützer, J., & Rubenstein, L. (2004). Five-Year Impact of Quality Improvement for Depression: Results of a Group-Level Randomized Controlled Trial. Archives of General Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.61.4.378

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.