The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessing effectiveness of treatment of depression in primary care: Partially randomised preference trial
Open accessAbstract
Background: There is a mismatch between the wish of a patient with depression to have counselling and the prescription of antidepressants by the doctor. Aims: To determine whether counselling is as effective as antidepressants for depression in primary care and whether allowing patients to choose their treatment affects their response. Method: A partially randomised preference trial, with patients randomised to either antidepressants or counselling or given their choice of either treatment. The treatment and follow-up were identical in the randomised and patient preference arms. Results: There were 103 randomised and 220 preference patients in the trial. We found: no differences in the baseline characteristics of the randomised and preference groups; that the two treatments were equally effective at 8 weeks, both for the randomised group and when the randomised and patient preference groups for a particular treatment were combined; and that expressing a preference for either treatment conferred no additional benefit on outcome. Conclusions: These data challenge several assumptions about the most appropriate treatment for depression in a primary care setting.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Elkin, I. (1989) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1989.01810110013002 · Cited by 2,300
Patient preferences and randomised clinical trials.
Brewin, C. R., & Bradley, C. (1989) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.299.6694.313 · Cited by 503
Priest, R. G., Vize, C., Roberts, A., Roberts, M., & Tylee, A. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.313.7061.858 · Cited by 385
Pragmatic randomised controlled trials in psychiatry
Hotopf, M., Churchill, R., & Lewis, G. (1999) · British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.175.3.217 · Cited by 165
Cited by
Cuijpers, P., Sijbrandij, M., Koole, S. L., Andersson, G., Beekman, A. T., & Reynolds, C. F. (2013) · World Psychiatry · doi:10.1002/wps.20038 · Cited by 540
Cuijpers, P., Noma, H., Karyotaki, E., Vinkers, C. H., Cipriani, A., & Furukawa, T. A. (2020) · World Psychiatry · doi:10.1002/wps.20701 · Cited by 540
Henderson, M., Glozier, N., & Elliott, K. H. (2005) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7495.802 · Cited by 455
Patients' preferences in the treatment of depressive disorder in primary care
van Schaik, D. J. F., Klijn, A. F. J., van Hout, H. P. J., van Marwijk, H. W. J., Beekman, A. T. F., de Haan, M., & van Dyck, R. (2004) · General Hospital Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2003.12.001 · Cited by 428
Mohr, D. C., Lyon, A. R., Lattie, E. G., Reddy, M., & Schueller, S. M. (2017) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.7725 · Cited by 432
Metadata
- Authors
- Bedi, N., Chilvers, C., Churchill, R., Dewey, M., Duggan, C., Fielding, K., Gretton, V., Miller, P., Harrison, G., Lee, A., & Williams, I.
- Venue
- British Journal of Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Royal College of Psychiatrists
- Published
- 2000-10
- Volume
- 177
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 312-318
- ISSN
- 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
- 1472-1465
- OpenAlex
- W2113921657
- Cited by
- 193
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 13.60
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Assessing effectiveness of treatment of depression in primary care: Partially randomised preference trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1192/bjp.177.4.312
- The paper
- Bedi, N., Chilvers, C., Churchill, R., Dewey, M., Duggan, C., Fielding, K., Gretton, V., Miller, P., Harrison, G., Lee, A., & Williams, I. (2000). Assessing effectiveness of treatment of depression in primary care: Partially randomised preference trial. British Journal of Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.177.4.312
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.
