Cited by 42Mental Health Treatment and AccessHealth Policy Implementation SciencePsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Collaborative Depression Trial (CADET): multi-centre randomised controlled trial of collaborative care for depression - study protocol

Open access
Richards, David A, Hughes-Morley, Adwoa, Hayes, Rachel A, Araya, Ricardo, Barkham, Michael, Bland, John M, Bower, Peter, Cape, John +9 more·2009·BMC Health Services Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Comprising of both organisational and patient level components, collaborative care is a potentially powerful intervention for improving depression treatment in UK primary Care. However, as previous models have been developed and evaluated in the United States, it is necessary to establish the effect of collaborative care in the UK in order to determine whether this innovative treatment model can replicate benefits for patients outside the US. This Phase III trial was preceded by a Phase II patient level RCT, following the MRC Complex Intervention Framework. METHODS/DESIGN: A multi-centre controlled trial with cluster-randomised allocation of GP practices. GP practices will be randomised to usual care control or to "collaborative care" - a combination of case manager coordinated support and brief psychological treatment, enhanced specialist and GP communication. The primary outcome will be symptoms of depression as assessed by the PHQ-9. DISCUSSION: If collaborative care is demonstrated to be effective we will have evidence to enable the NHS to substantially improve the organisation of depressed patients in primary care, and to assist primary care providers to deliver a model of enhanced depression care which is both effective and acceptable to patients.

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 · 10.1186/1472-6963-9-188

Cites

45 of 45 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

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?

  • In other mental health trials, successful recruitment has been achieved by mass screening lists of registered primary care patients, which results in large numbers of recruits, although the overall response rate tends to be low.

    “In other mental health trials we have found that successful recruitment has been achieved by mass screening lists of registered primary care patients [45], which results in large numbers of recruits, although the overall response rate tends to be low.”

    From Development and evaluation of culturally sensitive psychosocial interventions for under-served people in primary care (2014) · cites this paper as [45]

    In Patient Identification and Recruitment (page unavailable), the protocol says searching GP records was the most productive method tested in a pilot trial and that paper-form recruitment typically has a low response rate: about 15% agree to be contacted. It does not report that mass screening produced large numbers of recruits; its target of 550 recruits is a plan, not an achieved result, and its record search is limited to patients recently seen and coded for depression. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Richards, D. A., Hughes-Morley, A., Hayes, R. A., Araya, R., Barkham, M., Bland, J. M., Bower, P., Cape, J., Chew-Graham, C. A., Gask, L., Gilbody, S., Green, C., Kessler, D., Lewis, G., Lovell, K., Manning, C., & Pilling, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
  • University of York (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • St Pancras Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Richards, David A
Venue
BMC Health Services Research
Published
2009-10-16
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
188-188
ISSN
1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2100788683
Cited by
42
References
45
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
FWCI
5.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Health Services Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (CL-2007-25-001)
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
collaborative care, depression, primary care, case management, general practitioner practices, PHQ-9, depressive symptoms, complex interventions
MeSH terms
Cooperative Behavior, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Depressive Disorder, Family Practice, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Primary Health Care, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Patient-Centered Care, 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