Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18454878›Full record

SynthesisBMC family practice2008

Models in the delivery of depression care: a systematic review of randomised and controlled intervention trials.

Helen Christensen, Kathleen M Griffiths, Amelia Gulliver, Dannielle Clack, Marjan Kljakovic, Leanne Wells

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC family practice, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Impact of the Case Management Model through Community Liaison Nurses.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Article
  11. Integrated Care for Depression in Older Primary Care Patients.Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie · 2018
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Helen ChristensenCentre for Mental Health Research, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. helen.christensen@anu.edu.au
Kathleen M Griffiths
Amelia Gulliver
Dannielle Clack
Marjan Kljakovic
Leanne Wells

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is still debate as to which features, types or components of primary care interventions are associated with improved depression outcomes. Previous reviews have focused on components of collaborative care models in general practice settings. This paper aims to determine the effective components of depression care in primary care through a systematic examination of both general practice and community based intervention trials.

methodsFifty five randomised and controlled research trials which focused on adults and contained depression outcome measures were identified through PubMed, PsycInfo and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. Trials were classified according to the components involved in the delivery of treatment, the type of treatment, the primary focus or setting of the study, detailed features of delivery, and the discipline of the professional providing the treatment. The primary outcome measure was significant improvement on the key depression measure.

resultsComponents which were found to significantly predict improvement were the revision of professional roles, the provision of a case manager who provided direct feedback and delivered a psychological therapy, and an intervention that incorporated patient preferences into care. Nurse, psychologist and psychiatrist delivered care were effective, but pharmacist delivery was not. Training directed to general practitioners was significantly less successful than interventions that did not have training as the most important intervention. Community interventions were effective.

conclusionCase management is important in the provision of care in general practice. Certain community models of care (education programs) have potential while others are not successful in their current form (pharmacist monitoring).

Indexed as

Case ManagementAdultDepressive DisorderFamily PracticeFemaleHumansMaleOutcome Assessment, Health CarePrimary Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID18454878
PMCPMC2390560

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.