SynthesisBMC primary care2026
Real-world implementation of Collaborative Care in the United States: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC primary care, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe demand for behavioral health services continues to outpace the supply of the behavioral health workforce, resulting in many people seeking behavioral health services within their primary care practice. Collaborative Care is an effective, evidence-based model of behavioral health service integration into primary care. An extensive literature of randomized controlled trials exists, with much less published about the outcomes of Collaborative Care in real-world settings. This systematic review aims to describe and summarize results of the published literature regarding real-world implementation efforts of CoCM and suggests a reporting framework for future implementation efforts to better understand, compare, and evaluate CoCM programs.
methodsWe searched articles in PubMed and Web of Science published between Jan 1st 2000-September 30th 2024. Eligibility criteria included the following: (1) conducted in the United States, (2) real-world implementation studies, (3) adult patient population, (4) demonstrated the main elements that define CoCM as outlined by Medicare, (5) information above was publicly available in the article or supplementary material. The definition of CoCM was selected based on major professional organizations and Center for Medicaid/Medicare Services (CMS) criteria for Collaborative Care billing codes.
resultsA total of 21 articles were included in this review. Overall, Collaborative Care programs were found to be clinically effective across a wide range of settings and populations. The most common clinical outcomes reported were depression response (a 50% reduction in PHQ-9 score or a PHQ-9 score less than 10) and remission (PHQ-9 score less than 5). Depression response ranged from 30% to 58%. Remission ranged from 19% to 54%. Process measures were reported inconsistently. This suggests the potential utility of a reporting checklist for integrated care implementation.
conclusionsThis review adds to a growing literature capturing Collaborative Care effectiveness and feasibility in real-world settings. More consistent reporting of Collaborative Care model components and process measures in the Collaborative Care literature is needed.
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.