CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 304Mental Health Treatment and AccessTreatment of Major DepressionAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Improving Treatment of Late Life Depression in Primary Care: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Callahan, Christopher M., Hendrie, Hugh C., Dittus, Robert S., Brater, D. Craig, Hui, Siu L., Tierney, William M.·1994·Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
DOI 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1994.tb06555.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE : Facilitate primary care physicians' compliance with recommended standards of care for late life depression by reducing barriers to recognition and treatment. DESIGN : Randomized controlled clinical trial of physician‐targeted interventions. SETTING : Academic primary care group practice caring for an urban, medically indigent patient population. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS : Patients aged 60 and older who exceeded the threshold on the Centers for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES‐D) and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM‐D) and their primary care physicians. INTERVENTION : Physicians of intervention patients were provided with patient‐specific treatment recommendations during 3 special visits scheduled specifically to address the patient's symptoms of depression. In general, physicians were encouraged to establish a diagnosis of depression and educate their patient about the diagnosis, discontinue medications that can cause or exacerbate depressive symptoms, initiate antidepressants when appropriate, and consider referral to psychiatry. Guidelines for prescribing antidepressants were provided. Control physicians received no intervention, and control patients received usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES : Frequency of recording a depression diagnosis, stopping medications associated with depression, initiating antidepressant medication, and psychiatry referral; mean changes in HAM‐D and Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) scores. RESULTS : One hundred three physicians and 175 patients were involved in the clinical trial. Physicians of intervention patients were more likely to diagnose depression and prescribe antidepressants ( P < 0.01). There were no differences between the groups in the frequency of stopping medications associated with depression or referrals to psychiatry. Medications with the strongest cause and effect relationship to depression were infrequently used in this cohort of patients. Although both groups showed improvement in HAM‐D and SIP scores, we were unable to demonstrate significant differences in HAM‐D or SIP scores between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS : Intensive screening and feedback of patient‐specific treatment recommendations increased the recognition and treatment of late life depression by primary care physicians. However, we were unable to demonstrate significant improvement in depression or disability severity among intervention patients despite the informational support provided to their physicians. Efforts to improve the functional status of these patients may require more integrated interventions and more aggressive attempts to target psychosocial stressors traditionally outside the purview of primary care.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1994.tb06555.x

Cites

52 of 52 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

Show all 49 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Depression Guideline Panel., 1993, Depression in primary care, Vol 2. Treatment of major depression
  2. Moore JT, 1978, Recognition of depression by family medicine residents, J Fam Prac, 7, 509
  3. Callahan CM, 1992, Psychiatric symptoms in elderly patients due to medications, Ann Rev Gerontol, 12, 41

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 304

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Callahan, C. M., Hendrie, H. C., Dittus, R. S., Brater, D. C., Hui, S. L., & Tierney, W. M.
Affiliations
  • Regenstrief Institute (US)
  • Indiana University School of Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Callahan, Christopher M.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1994-08
Volume
42
Issue
8
Pages
839-846
ISSN
  • 0002-8614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5415
DOI
10.1111/j.1532-5415.1994.tb06555.x
OpenAlex
W2015771000
Cited by
304
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 9
FWCI
15.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 7574 d)
Locations
  • Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • School of Medicine, Indiana University
  • National Institute of Mental Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
geriatric depression, primary care, antidepressant prescribing, depression diagnosis, psychiatric referral, functional disability, older adults, medically indigent patients
MeSH terms
Aged, Antidepressive Agents, Depressive Disorder, Education, Medical, Continuing, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Primary Health Care, Prognosis, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychiatry, Referral and Consultation

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