Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25886864›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2015

Managing depression in people with multimorbidity: a qualitative evaluation of an integrated collaborative care model.

Sarah E Knowles, Carolyn Chew-Graham, Isabel Adeyemi, Nia Coupe, Peter A Coventry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

5 authors.

Sarah E KnowlesNIHR School for Primary Care Research and Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. sarah.knowles@manchester.ac.uk.
Carolyn Chew-GrahamPrimary Care and Health Sciences, University of Keele, and NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West Midlands, Keele, ST5 5BG, UK. c.a.chew-graham@keele.ac.uk.
Isabel AdeyemiNIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Greater Manchester and Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. isabel.adeyemi@postgrad.manchester.ac.uk.
Nia CoupeNIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Greater Manchester and Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. nia.coupe@postgrad.manchester.ac.uk.
Peter A CoventryNIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Greater Manchester and Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. peter.a.coventry@manchester.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with comorbid depression and physical health problems have poorer outcomes compared with those with single long term conditions (LTCs), or multiple LTCs without depression. Primary care has traditionally struggled to provide integrated care for this group. Collaborative care can reduce depression in people with LTCs but evidence is largely based on trials conducted in the United States that adopted separate treat to target protocols for physical and mental health. Little is known about whether collaborative care that integrates depression care within the management of LTCs is implementable in UK primary care, and acceptable to patients and health care professionals.

methodsNested interview study within the COINCIDE trial of collaborative care for patients with depression and diabetes/CHD (ISRCTN80309252). The study was conducted in primary care practices in North West England. Professionals delivering the interventions (nurses, GPs and psychological well-being practitioners) and patients in the intervention arm were invited to participate in semi-structured qualitative interviews.

resultsBased on combined thematic analysis of 59 transcripts, we identified two major themes: 1) Integration: patients and professionals valued collaborative ways of working because it enhanced co-ordination of mental and physical health care and provided a sense that patients' health was being more holistically managed. 2) Division: patients and professionals articulated a preference for therapeutic and spatial separation between mental and physical health. Patients especially valued a separate space outside of their LTC clinic to discuss their emotional health problems.

conclusionThe COINCIDE care model, that sought to integrate depression care within the context of LTC management, achieved service level integration but not therapeutic integration. Patients preferred a protected space to discuss mental health issues, and professionals maintained barriers around physical and mental health expertise. Findings therefore suggest that in the context of mental-physical multimorbidity, collaborative care can facilitate access to depression care in ways that overcome stigma and enhance the confidence of multidisciplinary health teams to work together. However, such care models need to be flexible and patient centred to accommodate the needs of patients for whom their depression may be independent of their LTC.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overCardiovascular DiseasesComorbidityCooperative BehaviorDepressionDiabetes MellitusDisease ManagementFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, OrganizationalPhysician-Patient RelationsPrimary Health Care

Identifiers

PMID25886864
PMCPMC4355419

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.