ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2025
Evaluating the Real-World Implementation and Effectiveness of a Collaborative Care Model for Adults with Depression and Anxiety at an Urban, Academic Hospital.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2025. 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.
- Evaluating the Real-World Implementation and Effectiveness of a Collaborative Care Model for Adults with Depression and Anxiety at an Urban, Academic Hospital.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleOver 30% of adults in the United States have symptoms of depressive or anxiety disorders. The majority of these patients are treated only in primary care and have suboptimal outcomes. The Collaborative Care Model (CoCM) is designed to address this problem. AIMS AND
objectivesThis study evaluated the implementation and effectiveness of CoCM at an urban academic medical center primary care clinic.
methodsRetrospective chart review and analysis informed by the RE-AIM framework.
resultsAcross 148 patients, mean PHQ-9 scores decreased by 4.8 (SD, 5.8, p < 0.001) and GAD-7 scores decreased by 5.6 (SD, 5.7, p < 0.001). Overall adoption rate was 36% and differed between attending physicians/APNs (50%) and residents (32%). Implementation showed fidelity to measurement-based care, but only 40% of cases were reviewed with the psychiatrist.
conclusionA real-world CoCM can improve symptoms of depression and anxiety for adults; however, trainee adoption and adherence to psychiatric case reviews may merit special attention.
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.