Trial reportGeneral hospital psychiatry
Adapting depression collaborative care models to increase uptake of computerized cognitive behavioral therapy at the VA: A pilot randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in General hospital psychiatry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the feasibility, acceptability, and potential health effects of computerized cognitive behavioral therapy-enhanced collaborative care (cCBT-CC) versus usual primary care (UC).
backgroundInternet-based cCBT can effectively treat depression but is not widely used, including in the Veterans Health Administration where it was freely available for veterans. We adapted pre-existing depression collaborative care models using implementation and user-centered design strategies to facilitate cCBT implementation.
methodsThis pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) included 57 VA primary care patients to cCBT-CC or UC. Participants had Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) scores of 10+. Those with serious mental illness (e.g., bipolar depression, schizophrenia) and active suicidality were excluded. Intervention patients received tailored Vets Prevail cCBT accompanied by collaborative care manager support, overseen by psychiatry and primary care. UC offered collaborative care services and digital mental health tools at baseline. Feasibility (patient reach, provider adoption, intervention implementation), acceptability (CSQ-8), and potential effectiveness (PHQ-9) data was collected at baseline and 3-months by a blinded study team member.
resultsParticipants (cCBT-CC n = 29, UC n = 28) were 50 years old (mean); 70 % men; 32 % White, 32 % Hispanic, 25 % Black; 21 % homeless-experienced. Mean baseline PHQ-9 scores were 15.1 (SD = 5.0); 39 % reported suicidal thoughts/behaviors. 72 % of 94 primary care providers, from 6 out of the 8 participating clinics, helped support their patients' participation. cCBT-CC participants received 4 care manager check-ins over 33 days totaling 113 min (64 % clinical; 36 % technical), on average. They completed mean 6.7 out of 11 cCBT lessons. Participants in the cCBT-CC arm experienced a statistically (not clinically) significant decline in the primary outcome of depression (Δ = -2.5; p = 0.02) symptoms from pretreatment to posttreatment. There was a greater, albeit non-significant, decrease in PHQ-9 scores among cCBT-CC participants over 3-months, compared to UC participants (Δ = -2.8; 95 % CI = -5.6, -0.01; p = 0.05).
conclusionscCBT-enhanced collaborative care appeared feasible, acceptable, and possibly effective in treating primary care patients with depression.
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.