Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 521

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomised trial of monitoring, feedback, and management of care by telephone to improve treatment of depression in primary care

Open access
Simon, G. E·2000·BMJ
DOI 10.1136/bmj.320.7234.550
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of two programmes to improve the treatment of acute depression in primary care. DESIGN: Randomised trial. SETTING: Primary care clinics in Seattle. PATIENTS: 613 patients starting antidepressant treatment. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to continued usual care or one of two interventions: feedback only and feedback plus care management. Feedback only comprised feedback and algorithm based recommendations to doctors on the basis of data from computerised records of pharmacy and visits. Feedback plus care management included systematic follow up by telephone, sophisticated treatment recommendations, and practice support by a care manager. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Blinded interviews by telephone 3 and 6 months after the initial prescription included a 20 item depression scale from the Hopkins symptom checklist and the structured clinical interview for the current DSM-IV depression module. Visits, antidepressant prescriptions, and overall use of health care were assessed from computerised records. RESULTS: Compared with usual care, feedback only had no significant effect on treatment received or patient outcomes. Patients receiving feedback plus care management had a higher probability of both receiving at least moderate doses of antidepressants (odds ratio 1.99, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 3.22) and a 50% improvement in depression scores on the symptom checklist (2.22, 1.31 to 3.75), lower mean depression scores on the symptom checklist at follow up, and a lower probability of major depression at follow up (0.46, 0.24 to 0.86). The incremental cost of feedback plus care management was about $80 ( pound50) per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring and feedback to doctors yielded no significant benefits for patients in primary care starting antidepressant treatment. A programme of systematic follow up and care management by telephone, however, significantly improved outcomes at modest cost.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.320.7234.550

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Simon, G. E.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2000-02-26
Volume
320
Issue
7234
Pages
550-554
ISSN
0959-8138 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1136/bmj.320.7234.550
OpenAlex
W2019910157
Cited by
521
References
4
FWCI
75.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

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.