Trial reportEthnicity & disease2018
Comparative Effectiveness of Coalitions Versus Technical Assistance for Depression Quality Improvement in Persons with Multiple Chronic Conditions.
Trial report in Ethnicity & disease, 2018. 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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Environmental Influences on Life Satisfaction and Depressive Symptoms Among Older Adults With Multimorbidity: Path Analysis Through Loneliness in the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging.The Gerontologist · 2022Article
- Article
- A Rapid Assessment of Disaster Preparedness Needs and Resources during the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Community Interventions to Promote Mental Health and Social Equity.Current psychiatry reports · 2019Review
- Community Engagement and Planning versus Resources for Services for Implementing Depression Quality Improvement: Exploratory Analysis for Black and Latino Adults.Ethnicity & disease · 2019Article
- Editorial: Developments in Community Partnered Participatory Research for Behavioral Health.Ethnicity & diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Significance: Prior research suggests that Community Engagement and Planning (CEP) for coalition support compared with Resources for Services (RS) for program technical assistance to implement depression quality improvement programs improves 6- and 12-month client mental-health related quality of life (MHRQL); however, effects for clients with multiple chronic medical conditions (MCC) are unknown. Objective: To explore effectiveness of CEP vs RS in MCC and non-MCC subgroups. Design: Secondary analyses of a cluster-randomized trial. Setting: 93 health care and community-based programs in two neighborhoods. Participants: Of 4,440 clients screened, 1,322 depressed (Patient Health Questionnaire, PHQ8) provided contact information, 1,246 enrolled and 1,018 (548 with ≥3 MCC) completed baseline, 6- or 12-month surveys. Intervention: CEP or RS for implementing depression quality improvement programs. Outcomes and Analyses: Primary: depression (PHQ9 <10), poor MHRQL (Short Form Health Survey, SF-12<40); Secondary: mental wellness, good physical health, behavioral health hospitalization, chronic homelessness risk, work/workloss days, services use at 6 and 12 months. End-point regressions were used to estimate intervention effects on outcomes for subgroups with ≥3 MCC, non-MCC, and intervention-by-MCC interactions (exploratory). Results: Among MCC clients at 6 months, CEP vs RS lowered likelihoods of depression and poor MHRQL; increased likelihood of mental wellness; reduced work-loss days among employed and likelihoods of ≥4 behavioral-health hospitalization nights and chronic homelessness risk, while increasing faith-based and park community center depression services; and at 12 months, likelihood of good physical health and park community center depression services use (each P<.05). There were no significant interactions or primary outcome effects for non-MCC. Conclusions: CEP was more effective than RS in improving 6-month primary outcomes among depressed MCC clients, without significant interactions.
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.