Trial reportEthnicity & disease2017
Community Partners in Care: 6-Month Outcomes of Two Quality Improvement Depression Care Interventions in Male Participants.
Trial report in Ethnicity & disease, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01699789 (CPIC is a Community Partnered Participatory Research), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
CPIC is a Community Partnered Participatory Research (CPPR) Project of Community and Academic Partners Working Together to Learn the Best Way to Reduce Depression in Our Communities.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- A Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Depression Collaborative Care: Subanalysis of Comorbid Anxiety.Western journal of nursing research · 2019Article
- Community Interventions to Promote Mental Health and Social Equity.Current psychiatry reports · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveLimited data exist on approaches to improve depression services for men in under-resourced communities. This article explores this issue using a sub-analysis of male participants in Community Partners in Care (CPIC).
designCommunity partnered, cluster, randomized trial.
settingHollywood-Metropolitan and South Los Angeles, California.
participants423 adult male clients with modified depression (PHQ-8 score≥10).
interventionsDepression collaborative care implementation using community engagement and planning (CEP) across programs compared with the more-traditional individual program, technical assistance (Resources for Services, RS).
main outcome measuresDepressive symptoms (PHQ-8 score), mental health-related quality of life (MHRQL), mental wellness, services utilization and settings.
resultsAt screening, levels of probable depression were moderate to high (17.5%-47.1%) among men across services sectors. Intervention effects on primary outcomes (PHQ-8 score and MHRQL) did not differ. Men in CEP compared with RS had improved mental wellness (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.00-3.42) and reduced hospitalizations (OR .40, 95% CI .16-.98), with fewer mental health specialty medication visits (IRR 0.33, 95% CI .15-.69), and a trend toward greater faith-based depression visits (IRR 2.89, 95% CI .99-8.45).
conclusionsExploratory sub-analyses suggest that high rates of mainly minority men in under-resourced communities have high prevalence of depression. A multi-sector coalition approach may hold promise for improving community-prioritized outcomes, such as mental wellness and reduced hospitalizations for men, meriting further development of this approach for future research and program design.
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.