Cited by 603Psychiatric care and mental health servicesMental Health Treatment and AccessPrimary Care and Health Outcomes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 130 of the 130 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparative Effectiveness of Collaborative Chronic Care Models for Mental Health Conditions Across Primary, Specialty, and Behavioral Health Care Settings: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Woltmann, Emily, Grogan-Kaylor, Andrew, Perron, Brian, Georges, Hebert, Kilbourne, Amy M., Bauer, Mark S.·2012·American Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Collaborative chronic care models (CCMs) improve outcome in chronic medical illnesses and depression treated in primary care settings. The effect of such models across other treatment settings and mental health conditions has not been comprehensively assessed. The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the comparative effectiveness of CCMs for mental health conditions across disorders and treatment settings. METHOD: Randomized controlled trials comparing CCMs with other care conditions, published or in press by August 15, 2011, were identified in a literature search and through contact with investigators. CCMs were defined a priori as interventions with at least three of the six components of the Improving Chronic Illness Care initiative (patient self-management support, clinical information systems, delivery system redesign, decision support, organizational support, and community resource linkages). Articles were included if the CCM effect on mental health symptoms or mental quality of life was reported. Data extraction included analyses of these outcomes plus social role function, physical and overall quality of life, and costs. Meta-analyses included comparisons using unadjusted continuous measures. RESULTS: Seventy-eight articles yielded 161 analyses from 57 trials (depression, N=40; bipolar disorder, N=4; anxiety disorders, N=3; multiple/other disorders, N=10). The meta-analysis indicated significant effects across disorders and care settings for depression as well as for mental and physical quality of life and social role function (Cohen's d values, 0.20-0.33). Total health care costs did not differ between CCMs and comparison models. A systematic review largely confirmed and extended these findings across conditions and outcome domains. CONCLUSIONS: CCMs can improve mental and physical outcomes for individuals with mental disorders across a wide variety of care settings, and they provide a robust clinical and policy framework for care integration.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.11111616

Cites

130 of 130 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 130 references

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Ofman JJ, 2004, a systematic review. Am J Med, 117, 182
  2. Renders CM, 2001, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 1, CD001481
  3. Tsai AC, 2005, Am J Manag Care, 11, 478
  4. Parks J, 2006, Morbidity and Mortality in People with Serious Mental Illness
  5. Mann AH, 1998, Br J Gen Med, 48, 875
  6. Unützer J, 2008, Am J Manag Care, 14, 95
  7. Bauer MS, Med Care
  8. 10.1176/ajp.2006.163.12.2047 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 602

Metadata

Authors
Woltmann, E., Grogan-Kaylor, A., Perron, B., Georges, H., Kilbourne, A. M., & Bauer, M. S.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • From the Brown School, Washington University, St. Louis; School of Social Work, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.; Harvard South Shore Psychiatry Residency Training Program, Harvard Medical School, Brockton, Mass.; Ann Arbor VA Medical Center, Ann Arbor; Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor; Center for Organization, Leadership, and Management Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston.
Venue
American Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2012-08
Volume
169
Issue
8
Pages
790-804
ISSN
  • 0002-953X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-7228
OpenAlex
W2168474679
Cited by
603
References
130
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 52 · 2018: 53 · 2017: 54 · 2016: 57 · 2015: 51 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 7
FWCI
6.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH079994)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
mental illness, depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorders, quality of life, health care costs, integrated care, primary care, behavioral health services, specialist care
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Cooperative Behavior, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Long-Term Care, Medicine, Mental Health Services, Primary Health Care, Models, Organizational, Comparative Effectiveness Research

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