Should mental health interventions be locally grown or factory-farmed?

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Cost-Effectiveness of Collaborative Care for Depression in HIV Clinics.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2015
   Trial
2. Cost-effectiveness of on-site versus off-site collaborative care for depression in rural FQHCs.Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) · 2015
   Trial
3. Mental health collaborative care and its role in primary care settings.Current psychiatry reports · 2013
   Review

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Practice-based or telemedicine-based collaborative care for depression.2013
• Commented on by
  Response to White.2013
• Comment on
  Practice-based versus telemedicine-based collaborative care for depression in rural federally qualified health centers: a pragmatic randomized comparative effectiveness trial.2013

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as