Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34098913›Full record

Trial reportBMC psychiatry2021

How do care providers evaluate collaboration? - qualitative process evaluation of a cluster-randomized controlled trial of collaborative and stepped care for patients with mental disorders.

Kerstin Maehder, Silke Werner, Angelika Weigel, Bernd Löwe, Daniela Heddaeus, Martin Härter, Olaf von dem Knesebeck

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC psychiatry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03226743 (Collaborative and Stepped Care in Mental Health by Overcoming Treatment Sector Barriers), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT03226743 nacompletednot on this map

Collaborative and Stepped Care in Mental Health by Overcoming Treatment Sector Barriers: A Cluster-randomized Controlled Trial (COMET)

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversitätsklinikum Hamburg-EppendorfRan2018 to 2022Enrolled615ConditionsDepressive Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Somatoform Disorder, Alcohol Use DisorderArmscollaborative and stepped care model
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors.

Kerstin Maehder *Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. k.maehder@uke.de.
Silke Werner *Institute of Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Angelika WeigelDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Bernd LöweDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Daniela HeddaeusDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Martin Härter *Department of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Olaf von dem Knesebeck *Institute of Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCollaborative and stepped care (CSC) models are recommended for mental disorders. Their successful implementation depends on effective collaboration between involved care providers from primary and specialist care. To gain insights into the collaboration experiences of care providers in CSC against the backdrop of usual mental health care, a qualitative process evaluation was realized as part of a cluster-randomized controlled trial (COMET) of a collaborative and stepped care model in Hamburg (Germany).

methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with N = 24 care providers from primary and specialist care (outpatient psychotherapists and psychiatrists, inpatient/ day clinic mental health providers) within and outside of COMET at the trial's beginning and 12 months later. Interviews were analyzed applying a qualitative structuring content analysis approach, combining deductive and inductive category development.

resultsUsual mental health care was considered deficient in resources, with collaboration being scarce and mainly taking place in small informal networks. Within the COMET trial, quicker referral paths were welcomed, as were quarterly COMET network meetings which provided room for exchange and fostered mutual understanding. Yet, also in COMET, collaboration remained difficult due to communication problems, the unfavorable regional distribution of the COMET care providers and interprofessional discrepancies regarding each profession's role, competencies and mutual esteem. Ideas for improvement included more localized networks, the inclusion of further professions and the overall amelioration of mental health care regarding resources and remuneration, especially for collaborative activities.

conclusionsThe process evaluation of the COMET trial revealed the benefits of creating room for interprofessional encounter to foster collaborative care. Despite the benefits of faster patient referrals, the COMET network did not fulfill all care providers' prior expectations. A focus should be set on interprofessional competencies, mutual perception and role clarification, as these have been revealed as significant barriers to collaboration within CSC models such as COMET.

trial registrationThe COMET trial (Collaborative and Stepped Care in Mental Health by Overcoming Treatment Sector Barriers) has been registered on July 24, 2017 under the trial registration number NCT03226743 .

Indexed as

Mental DisordersMental Health ServicesPsychiatryGermanyHumansPrimary Health CareCollaborative careImplementationMental healthProcess evaluationQualitative studyRandomized-controlled trialStepped care

Identifiers

PMID34098913
PMCPMC8184353

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.