Trial reportDer Nervenarzt2014
[Integrated care for depressive disorders].
Trial report in Der Nervenarzt, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccording to the special report of the Advisory Council on the Assessment of Developments in the Health Care Sector, the termination of contracts on integrated care (IC) in accordance with §140a-d of the Social Act V (SGB V) was mostly due to high costs and volume expansion by services providers (physicians). However, there is still limited knowledge about the medical and economic impact of projects of integrated care, as such projects were on the one hand not primarily designed with a scientific evaluation in mind and on the other hand health insurance agencies usually do not evaluate data for scientific reasons.
aimIn Aachen the IC project "Integrated Care in Mental Health" ran between 2006 and 2011. During that time a total of 3,408 patients with depressive disorders were treated across institutional and trans-sectoral borders according to the national clinical practice guidelines and S3 guidelines on unipolar depression. This study was initiated in an attempt to describe and evaluate the clinical success of treatment.
resultsThis study evaluated the outcome of the clinical treatment provided but due to the lack of available data on the economic impact of the project, the study contribution is limited to non-economic aspects. By comparing various clinical parameters it could be shown that scores in certain patient-reported clinical scales, such as the Hamilton rating scale for depression, and the WHO-5 well-being index as well as on the clinician-reported clinical global impression (CGI) improved in a statistically significant manner over time compared to initial assessments. Due to the lack of data on an appropriate comparison cohort of patients any comparative statements concerning the superiority of the treatment of depressive disorders outside an integrated care project remains hypothetical and preliminary.
conclusionThis study revealed the limitations of a naturalistic study in an IC setting and showed that without adequate funding a satisfactory evaluation that fulfills scientific criteria seems to be impossible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24149773What 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.