The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 79 of the 82 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Collaborative care for depression in primary care: Making sense of a complex intervention: systematic review and meta-regression
Open accessAbstract
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.
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.
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 the citing paper
“The resulting sample size of 100 screen-positive participants in 24 clusters provides over 90% power to detect a difference in recovery rates of 70% in the CSC arm versus 50% in the EUC control arm, with estimates based on earlier efficacy trials in Goa [15] and Chile [17].”
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
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1983) · Cited by 79,882
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
(2000) · Cited by 9,198
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)04337-3 · Cited by 5,373
Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5 · Cited by 4,826
Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health
Campbell, M. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7262.694 · Cited by 3,474 · cited 3×
“Collaborative care is an example of a complex intervention, involving a number of separate mechanisms, where the ‘active ingredient’ is difficult to specify (Campbell et al, 2000).”
BackgroundHow should meta‐regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?
Thompson, S. G., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1187 · Cited by 3,026
Unützer, J., Katon, W., Callahan, C. M., Williams, Jr., Hunkeler, E., Harpole, L., Hoffing, M., Della Penna, R. D., Noël, P. H., Lin, E. H. B., et al. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.288.22.2836 · Cited by 2,405
Imputing missing standard deviations in meta-analyses can provide accurate results
Furukawa, T. A., Barbui, C., Cipriani, A., Brambilla, P., & Watanabe, N. (2006) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.06.006 · Cited by 1,568
Controlling the risk of spurious findings from meta-regression
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2004) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1752 · Cited by 1,267 · cited 1×
“The permutation test was used to calculate P values (using 1000 Monte Carlo simulations) and to reduce the chance of spurious false-positive findings (Higgins & Thompson, 2004).”
Method
Flagged first, then by citations
3 of the 82 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- 2000, A Framework for Development and Evaluation of RCTs for Complex Interventions to Improve Health
- Rickles, 2003, A Randomized Controlled Study Evaluating the Impact of an Antidepressant Monitoring Program on Consumer Outcomes
- Finley, 1999, Case management of depression by clinical pharmacists in a primary care setting, Formulary, 34, 864
- 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)04149-5 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1345/aph.1A259 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Adherence in Internet Interventions for Anxiety and Depression
Christensen, H., Griffiths, K. M., & Farrer, L. (2009) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1194 · Cited by 1,133
Collaborative care for depression and anxiety problems
Archer, J., Bower, P., Gilbody, S., Lovell, K., Richards, D., Gask, L., Dickens, C., & Coventry, P. (2012) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006525.pub2 · Cited by 1,126
Self-citationAnderson, I. M., Ferrier, I. N., Baldwin, R., Cowen, P. J., Howard, L. M., Lewis, G., Matthews, K., McAllister-Williams, H., Peveler, R. C., Scott, J. L., et al. (2008) · Journal of Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1177/0269881107088441 · Cited by 909
May, C. R., Cummings, A., Girling, M., Bracher, M., Mair, F. S., May, C. M., Murray, E., Myall, M., Rapley, T., & Finch, T. (2018) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-018-0758-1 · Cited by 683
Cleare, A., Pariante, C., Young, A., Anderson, I., Christmas, D., Cowen, P., Dickens, C., Ferrier, I., Geddes, J., Gilbody, S., et al. (2015) · Journal of Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1177/0269881115581093 · Cited by 759
Self-citation
Metadata
- 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
- Publisher
- Royal College of Psychiatrists
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › 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
