ArticleBMC psychiatry2020
Treatment recommendations made by a consultant psychiatrist to improve the quality of care in a collaborative mental health intervention in rural Nepal.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Real-world implementation of Collaborative Care in the United States: a systematic review.BMC primary care · 2026Pooled it
- Addressing challenges for psychotherapy supervision in global mental health through experiential learnings from rural Nepal.Discover public health · 2025Article
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
backgroundThe Collaborative Care Model (CoCM) for mental healthcare, where a consulting psychiatrist supports primary care and behavioral health workers, has the potential to address the large unmet burden of mental illness worldwide. A core component of this model is that the psychiatrist reviews treatment plans for a panel of patients and provides specific clinical recommendations to improve the quality of care. Very few studies have reported data on such recommendations. This study reviews and classifies the recommendations made by consulting psychiatrists in a rural primary care clinic in Nepal.
methodsA chart review was conducted for all patients whose cases were reviewed by the treatment team from January to June 2017, after CoCM had been operational for 6 months. Free text of the recommendations were extracted and two coders analyzed the data using an inductive approach to group and categorize recommendations until the coders achieved consensus. Cumulative frequency of the recommendations are tabulated and discussed in the context of an adapted CoCM in rural Nepal.
resultsThe clinical team discussed 1174 patient encounters (1162 unique patients) during panel reviews throughout the study period. The consultant psychiatrist made 214 recommendations for 192 (16%) patients. The most common recommendations were to revisit the primary mental health diagnosis (16%, n = 34), add or increase focus on counselling and psychosocial support (9%, n = 20), increase the antidepressant dose (9%, n = 20), and discontinue inappropriate medications (6%, n = 12).
conclusionsIn this CoCM study, the majority of treatment plans did not require significant change. The recommendations highlight the challenge that non-specialists face in making an accurate mental health diagnosis, the relative neglect of non-pharmacological interventions, and the risk of inappropriate medications. These results can inform interventions to better support non-specialists in rural areas.
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.