CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 194Digital Mental Health InterventionsMental Health Treatment and AccessAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Stratified Care vs Stepped Care for Depression: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

Open access
Delgadillo, Jaime, Ali, Shehzad, Fleck, Kieran, Agnew, Charlotte, Southgate, Amy, Parkhouse, Laura, Cohen, Zachary D., DeRubeis, Robert J., Barkham, Michael·2022·JAMA Psychiatry
DOI 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.3539PMC PMC8655665
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Importance: Depression is a major cause of disability worldwide. Although empirically supported treatments are available, there is scarce evidence on how to effectively personalize psychological treatment selection. Objective: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 2 treatment selection strategies: stepped care and stratified care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multisite, cluster randomized clinical trial recruited participants from the English National Health Service from July 5, 2018, to February 1, 2019. Thirty clinicians working across 4 psychological therapy services were randomly assigned to provide stratified (n = 15) or stepped (n = 15) care. In stepped care, patients sequentially access low-intensity guided self-help followed by high-intensity psychotherapy. In stratified care, patients are matched with either low- or high-intensity treatments at initial assessment. Data were analyzed from May 18, 2020, to October 13, 2021, using intention-to-treat principles. Interventions: All clinicians used the same interview schedule to conduct initial assessments with patients seeking psychological treatment for common mental disorders, but those in the stratified care group received a personalized treatment recommendation for each patient generated by a machine learning algorithm. Eligible patients received either stratified or stepped care (ie, treatment as usual). Main Outcomes and Measures: The preregistered outcome was posttreatment reliable and clinically significant improvement (RCSI) of depression symptoms (measured using the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire). The RCSI outcome was compared between groups using logistic regression adjusted for baseline severity. Cost-effectiveness analyses compared incremental costs and health outcomes of the 2 treatment pathways. Results: A total of 951 patients were included (618 women among 950 with data available [65.1%]; mean [SD] age, 38.27 [14.53] years). The proportion of cases of RCSI was significantly higher in the stratified care arm compared with the stepped care arm (264 of 505 [52.3%] vs 134 of 297 [45.1%]; odds ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.04-1.87]; P = .03). Stratified care was associated with a higher mean additional cost per patient (£104.5 [95% CI, £67.5-£141.6] [$139.83 (95% CI, $90.32-$189.48)]; P < .001) because more patients accessed high-intensity treatments (332 of 583 [56.9%] vs 107 of 368 [29.1%]; χ2 = 70.51; P < .001), but this additional cost resulted in an approximately 7% increase in the probability of RCSI. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cluster randomized clinical trial of adults with common mental disorders, stratified care was efficacious and cost-effective for the treatment of depression symptoms compared with stepped care. Stratified care can improve depression treatment outcomes at a modest additional cost. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN11106183.

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/jamapsychiatry.2021.3539

Cites

26 of 26 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 26 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Richards, 2011, Reach Out: National Programme Educator Materials to Support the Delivery of Training for Psychological Wellbeing Practitioners Delivering Low Intensity Interventions.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–193 of 193

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Delgadillo, J., Ali, S., Fleck, K., Agnew, C., Southgate, A., Parkhouse, L., Cohen, Z. D., DeRubeis, R. J., & Barkham, M.
Affiliations
  • Humber Teaching NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Western University (CA)
  • Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
Corresponding author
Delgadillo, Jaime
ORCID
Venue
JAMA Psychiatry
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2022-02-01
Volume
79
Issue
2
Pages
101
ISSN
2168-622X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.3539
PMC
PMC8655665
OpenAlex
W4200371774
Cited by
194
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 45 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 20
FWCI
22.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JAMA Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • Scholarship@Western (Western University) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (28/05/18)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
depression, stratified care, stepped care, treatment selection, personalized treatment recommendations, machine learning algorithms, guided self-help, psychotherapy, common mental disorders, cost-effectiveness, clinical effectiveness, National Health Service
MeSH terms
Distance Counseling, Adult, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychotherapy, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Care, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult, Eye Movement Desensitization Reprocessing

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