SynthesisBMC health services research2010
Cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for the treatment of major depressive disorder in primary care. A systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
32 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Interprofessional collaboration in primary care: what effect on patient health? A systematic literature review.BMC primary care · 2023Pooled it
- Economic evaluation of psychological treatments for common mental disorders in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.Health policy and planning · 2023Pooled it
- Primary-level worker interventions for the care of people living with mental disorders and distress in low- and middle-income countries.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Collaborative care for anxiety disorders in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC family practice · 2016Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for the treatment of depressive disorders in primary care: a systematic review.PloS one · 2015Pooled it
- The estimation of utility weights in cost-utility analysis for mental disorders: a systematic review.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Pooled it
- Trial
- Cost-utility analysis of a collaborative and stepped care model in patients with mental disorders in German primary care (the COMET study).BMC psychiatry · 2025Trial
- Matching depression management to severity prognosis in primary care: results of the Target-D randomised controlled trial.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021Trial
- Trial
- A stepped-wedge evaluation of an initiative to spread the collaborative care model for depression in primary care.Annals of family medicine · 2015Trial
- Intervention impact on depression product appraisal and purchasing behavior by employers: a randomized trial.BMC health services research · 2014Trial
- Trial
- Cost-utility analysis of a collaborative care intervention for major depressive disorder in an occupational healthcare setting.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2014Trial
- Effectiveness of a coordinated ambulatory care program for patients with mental disorders or multiple sclerosis: results of a prospective non-randomized controlled trial in South Germany.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Cost-effectiveness of a care manager collaborative care programme for patients with depression in primary care: 12-month economic evaluation of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2021Article
- An Overview of Reviews on Interprofessional Collaboration in Primary Care: Effectiveness.International journal of integrated care · 2021Article
- Economic evaluations of psychological treatments for common mental disorders in low- and middle-income countries: protocol for a systematic review.Global health action · 2021Article
- Behavioral Health Integration and Outcomes that Matter to Patients: a Longitudinal Mixed-Methods Observational Study.The journal of behavioral health services & research · 2020Observational
- An Economic Analysis of the Implementation of Team-based Collaborative Care in Outpatient General Mental Health Clinics.Medical care · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe effectiveness of collaborative care for patients with major depressive disorder in primary care has been established. Assessing its cost-effectiveness is important for deciding on implementation. This review therefore evaluates the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for major depressive disorder in primary care.
methodsA systematic search on economic evaluations of collaborative care was conducted in Pubmed and PsychInfo. Quality of the studies was measured with the Cochrane checklist and the CHEC-list for economic evaluations. Cost-effectiveness and costs per depression-free days were reported.
results8 studies were found, involving 4868 patients. The quality of the cost effectiveness studies, according to the CHEC-list, could be improved. Generally, the studies did not include all relevant costs and did not perform sensitivity analysis. Only 4 out of 8 studies reported cost per QALY, 6 out of 8 reported costs per depression-free days. The highest costs per QALY reported were $49,500, the highest costs per depression-free day were $24.
conclusionsAlthough studies did not fulfil all criteria of the CHEC-list, collaborative care is a promising intervention and it may be cost-effective. However, to conclude on the cost-effectiveness, depression research should follow economic guidelines to improve the quality of the economic evaluations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.