Cited by 429Mental Health Treatment and AccessHealth Policy Implementation SciencePsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Collaborative care for depression in primary care: Making sense of a complex intervention: systematic review and meta-regression

Open access
Bower, Peter, Gilbody, Simon, Richards, David, Fletcher, Janine, Sutton, Alex·2006·British Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: The management of depression in primary care is a significant issue for health services worldwide. ‘Collaborative care’ interventions are effective, but little is known about which aspects of these complex interventions are essential. Aims: To use meta-regression to identify ‘active ingredients' in collaborative care models for depression in primary care. Method: Studies were identified using systematic searches of electronic databases. The content of collaborative care interventions was coded, together with outcome data on antidepressant use and depressive symptoms. Meta-regression was used to examine relationships between intervention content and outcomes. Results: There was no significant predictor of the effect of collaborative care on antidepressant use. Key predictors of depressive symptom outcomes included systematic identification of patients, professional background of staff and specialist supervision. Conclusions: Meta-regression may be useful in examining ‘active ingredients' in complex interventions in mental health.

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 · 10.1192/bjp.bp.106.023655

Cites

79 of 79 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?

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

3 of the 82 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bower, P., Gilbody, S., Richards, D., Fletcher, J., & Sutton, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • University of York (GB)
  • University of Leicester (GB)
Corresponding author
Bower, Peter
Venue
British Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2006-12
Volume
189
Issue
6
Pages
484-493
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
OpenAlex
W2114487236
Cited by
429
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 51 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 34
FWCI
2.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
  • 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, complex interventions, active ingredients, antidepressant use, depressive symptoms, mental health services
MeSH terms
Depressive Disorder, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Mental Health Services, Patient Care Team, Primary Health Care, Treatment Outcome

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