Cited by 221Mental Health Treatment and AccessPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Characteristics of Effective Collaborative Care for Treatment of Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression of 74 Randomised Controlled Trials

Open access
Coventry, Peter A., Hudson, Joanna L., Kontopantelis, Evangelos, Archer, Janine, Richards, David A., Gilbody, Simon, Lovell, Karina, Dickens, Chris +3 more·2014·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Collaborative care is a complex intervention based on chronic disease management models and is effective in the management of depression. However, there is still uncertainty about which components of collaborative care are effective. We used meta-regression to identify factors in collaborative care associated with improvement in patient outcomes (depressive symptoms) and the process of care (use of anti-depressant medication). METHODS AND FINDINGS: Systematic review with meta-regression. The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group trials registers were searched from inception to 9th February 2012. An update was run in the CENTRAL trials database on 29th December 2013. Inclusion criteria were: randomised controlled trials of collaborative care for adults ≥18 years with a primary diagnosis of depression or mixed anxiety and depressive disorder. Random effects meta-regression was used to estimate regression coefficients with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between study level covariates and depressive symptoms and relative risk (95% CI) and anti-depressant use. The association between anti-depressant use and improvement in depression was also explored. Seventy four trials were identified (85 comparisons, across 21,345 participants). Collaborative care that included psychological interventions predicted improvement in depression (β coefficient -0.11, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.01, p = 0.03). Systematic identification of patients (relative risk 1.43, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.81, p = 0.004) and the presence of a chronic physical condition (relative risk 1.32, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.65, p = 0.02) predicted use of anti-depressant medication. CONCLUSION: Trials of collaborative care that included psychological treatment, with or without anti-depressant medication, appeared to improve depression more than those without psychological treatment. Trials that used systematic methods to identify patients with depression and also trials that included patients with a chronic physical condition reported improved use of anti-depressant medication. However, these findings are limited by the observational nature of meta-regression, incomplete data reporting, and the use of study aggregates.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0108114

Cites

55 of 55 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

1 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Coventry, P. A., Hudson, J. L., Kontopantelis, E., Archer, J., Richards, D. A., Gilbody, S., Lovell, K., Dickens, C., Gask, L., Waheed, W., & Bower, P.
Affiliations
  • Manchester Academic Health Science Centre (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • University of York (GB)
  • Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Coventry, Peter A.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-09-29
Volume
9
Issue
9
Pages
e108114
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2096684104
Cited by
221
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 9
FWCI
2.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0611-10203, 08/19/04, 10/57/43, RCF_R10_PC)
  • Medical Research Council (MR/K006665/1, MC_PC_13042)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
collaborative care, depression, mixed anxiety-depressive disorder, psychological intervention, antidepressant use, chronic physical illness, patient identification, depressive symptoms, complex interventions
MeSH terms
Antidepressive Agents, Cooperative Behavior, Depression, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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