Cited by 312Bipolar Disorder and TreatmentPsychiatric care and mental health servicesSchizophrenia research and treatment

Collaborative care for bipolar disorder, Part II: impact on clinical outcome, function, and costs.

Open access
Bauer, Mark S., McBride, Linda, Williford, William O., Glick, Henry, Kinosian, Bruce, Altshuler, Lori, Beresford, Thomas, Kilbourne, Amy M. +1 more·2006·Psychiatric Services

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The study addressed whether a collaborative model for chronic care, described in part I (this issue), improves outcome for bipolar disorder. METHODS: The intervention was designed to improve outcome by enhancing patient self-management skills with group psychoeducation; providing clinician decision support with simplified practice guidelines; and improving access to care, continuity of care, and information flow via nurse care coordinators. In an effectiveness design veterans with bipolar disorder at 11 Veterans Affairs hospitals were randomly assigned to three years of care in the intervention or continued usual care. Blinded clinical and functional measures were obtained every eight weeks. Intention-to-treat analysis (N=306) with mixed-effects models addressed the hypothesis that improvements would accrue over three years, consistent with social learning theory. RESULTS: The intervention significantly reduced weeks in affective episode, primarily mania. Broad-based improvements were demonstrated in social role function, mental quality of life, and treatment satisfaction. Reductions in mean manic and depressive symptoms were not significant. The intervention was cost-neutral while achieving a net reduction of 6.2 weeks in affective episode. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative chronic care models can improve some long-term clinical outcomes for bipolar disorder. Functional and quality-of-life benefits also were demonstrated, with most benefits accruing in years 2 and 3.

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 · 10.1176/ps.2006.57.7.937

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. [17]17. Badamgarav E, Weingarten SR, Henning JM, et al: Effectiveness of disease manage- ment programs in depression. American Journal of Psychiatry 160:2080-2090, 2003
  2. [29]29. Ball JR, Mitchell PB, Corry JC, et al: A ran- domized controlled trial of cognitive thera- py for bipolar disorder: focus on long-term change. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 67:277-286, 2006
  3. [30]30. Scott J, Paykel E, Morriss R, et al: Cogni- tive-behavioural therapy for severe and re- current bipolar disorders: a randomized controlled trial. British Journal of Psychia- try 188:313-320, 2006
  4. [45]45. Bauer MS, McBride L: Structured Group Psychotherapy for Bipolar Disorder. New York, Springer, 1996
  5. [51]51. Mallinckrodt CH, Clark WS, David SR: Ac- counting for dropout bias using mixed-ef- fects models. Journal of Biopharmacologi- cal Statistics 11: 9-21, 2001
  6. [59]59. Suppes T, Rush JA, Dennehy EB, et al: Texas Medication Algorithm Project: clini- cal results for patients with a history of ma- nia. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 64:370- 382, 2003

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bauer, M. S., McBride, L., Williford, W. O., Glick, H., Kinosian, B., Altshuler, L., Beresford, T., Kilbourne, A. M., & Sajatovic, M.
Affiliations
  • Providence VA Medical Center (US)
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • University of Colorado Denver (US)
Venue
Psychiatric Services
Published
2006-07
Volume
57
Issue
7
Pages
937-945
ISSN
  • 0022-1597 (ISSN-L)
  • 1075-2730
  • 1557-9700
OpenAlex
W2049050007
Cited by
312
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 24
FWCI
12.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Psychiatric Services (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - East Tennessee State University (East Tennessee State University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • National Institute of Mental Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
Keywords
bipolar disorder, collaborative care, Chronic Care Model, veterans, group psychoeducation, clinician decision support, clinical guidelines, self-management skills, mania, quality of life, treatment satisfaction, continuity of care, social learning theory
MeSH terms
Adult, Bipolar Disorder, Chronic Disease, Combined Modality Therapy, Community Mental Health Services, Continuity of Patient Care, Cooperative Behavior, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Health Plan Implementation, Health Services Accessibility, Hospitals, Veterans, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Care Team, Patient Education as Topic, Self Care, United States, Veterans, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Delivery of Health Care, Integrated, Case Management

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