CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 281Mental Health Treatment and AccessPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 37 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Collaborative Care for Adolescents With Depression in Primary Care: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Open access
Richardson, Laura P., Ludman, Evette, McCauley, Elizabeth, Lindenbaum, Jeff, Larison, Cindy, Zhou, Chuan, Clarke, Greg, Brent, David, Katon, Wayne·2014·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.2014.9259PMC PMC4492537
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Up to 20% of adolescents experience an episode of major depression by age 18 years yet few receive evidence-based treatments for their depression. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a collaborative care intervention for adolescents with depression improves depressive outcomes compared with usual care. DESIGN: Randomized trial with blinded outcome assessment conducted between April 2010 and April 2013. SETTING: Nine primary care clinics in the Group Health system in Washington State. PARTICIPANTS: Adolescents (aged 13-17 years) who screened positive for depression (Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item [PHQ-9] score ≥10) on 2 occasions or who screened positive and met criteria for major depression, spoke English, and had telephone access were recruited. Exclusions included alcohol/drug misuse, suicidal plan or recent attempt, bipolar disorder, developmental delay, and seeing a psychiatrist. INTERVENTIONS: Twelve-month collaborative care intervention including an initial in-person engagement session and regular follow-up by master's-level clinicians. Usual care control youth received depression screening results and could access mental health services through Group Health. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was change in depressive symptoms on a modified version of the Child Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R; score range, 14-94) from baseline to 12 months. Secondary outcomes included change in Columbia Impairment Scale score (CIS), depression response (≥50% decrease on the CDRS-R), and remission (PHQ-9 score <5). RESULTS: Intervention youth (n = 50), compared with those randomized to receive usual care (n = 51), had greater decreases in CDRS-R scores such that by 12 months intervention youth had a mean score of 27.5 (95% CI, 23.8-31.1) compared with 34.6 (95% CI, 30.6-38.6) in control youth (overall intervention effect: F2,747.3 = 7.24, P < .001). Both intervention and control youth experienced improvement on the CIS with no significant differences between groups. At 12 months, intervention youth were more likely than control youth to achieve depression response (67.6% vs 38.6%, OR = 3.3, 95% CI, 1.4-8.2; P = .009) and remission (50.4% vs 20.7%, OR = 3.9, 95% CI, 1.5-10.6; P = .007). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among adolescents with depression seen in primary care, a collaborative care intervention resulted in greater improvement in depressive symptoms at 12 months than usual care. These findings suggest that mental health services for adolescents with depression can be integrated into primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01140464.

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/jama.2014.9259

Cites

37 of 37 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

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?

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 39 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Richardson, L. P., Ludman, E., McCauley, E., Lindenbaum, J., Larison, C., Zhou, C., Clarke, G., Brent, D., & Katon, W.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute (US)
  • Seattle Children's Research Institute (US)
  • Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, Oregon
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
Richardson, Laura P.
ORCID
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2014-08-27
Volume
312
Issue
8
Pages
809
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.2014.9259
PMC
PMC4492537
OpenAlex
W2075922892
Cited by
281
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 3
FWCI
37.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH085645)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
adolescent depression, collaborative care, primary care, depression screening, PHQ-9, depression remission, functional disability, telephone follow-up, usual care comparison, Group Health, access to mental health care, usual care
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Health Services, Patient Care Team, Primary Health Care, Treatment Outcome

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