ArticleIndian journal of endocrinology and metabolism
The Impact of a Collaborative Care Model on Health Trajectories among Patients with Co-Morbid Depression and Diabetes: The INDEPENDENT Study.
Article in Indian journal of endocrinology and metabolism. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Context: Collaborative care models for depression have been successful in a variety of settings, but their success may differ by patient engagement. We conducted a post-hoc analysis of the INDEPENDENT trial to investigate the role of differential engagement of participants on health outcomes over 3 years. Settings and Design: INDEPENDENT study was a parallel, single-blinded, randomised clinical trial conducted at four socio-economically diverse clinics in India. Participants were randomised to receive either active collaborative care or usual care for 12 months and followed up for 24 months. Method: We grouped intervention participants by engagement, defined as moderate (≤7 visits) or high, (8 or more visits) and compared them with usual care participants. Improvements in composite measure (depressive symptoms and at least one of three cardio-metabolic) were the primary outcome. Statistical Analysis: Mean levels of depression and cardio-metabolic measures were analysed over time using computer package IBM SPSS Statistics 25. Results: The composite outcome was sustained the highest in the moderate engagers [27.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 19.5, 36.7] and the lowest in high engagers (15.8%, 95% CI: 8.1, 26.8). This pattern was observed for individual parameters - depressive symptoms and glycosylated haemoglobin. Progressive reductions in mean depressive symptom scores were observed for moderate engagers and usual care group from baseline to 36 months. However, in high engagers of collaborative care, mean depressive symptoms were higher at 36 months compared to 12 months. Conclusion: Sustained benefits of collaborative care were larger in participants with moderate engagement compared with high engagement, although a majority of participants relapsed on one or more outcome measures by 36 months. High engagers of collaborative care for co-morbid depression and diabetes may need light touch interventions for longer periods to maintain health and reduce depressive symptoms.
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.