Email UpdatesLiterature Collection
Collection Insights
11K+
References
9K+
Articles
1400+
Grey Literature
4600+
Opioids & SU
The Literature Collection contains over 11,000 references for published and grey literature on the integration of behavioral health and primary care. Learn More
Use the Search feature below to find references for your terms across the entire Literature Collection, or limit your searches by Authors, Keywords, or Titles and by Year, Type, or Topic. View your search results as displayed, or use the options to: Show more references per page; Sort references by Title or Date; and Refine your search criteria. Expand an individual reference to View Details. Full-text access to the literature may be available through a link to PubMed, a DOI, or a URL. References may also be exported for use in bibliographic software (e.g., EndNote, RefWorks, Zotero).
11231 Results
2205
Collaborative care for bipolar disorder: Part I. Intervention and implementation in a randomized effectiveness trial
Type: Journal Article
Year: 2006
Publication Place: United States
Abstract: Outcome for bipolar disorder remains suboptimal despite the availability of efficacious treatments. To improve treatment effectiveness in clinical practice, a Veterans Affairs study team created a care model conceptually similar to the lithium clinics of the 1970s but augmented by principles of more recent collaborative care models for chronic medical illnesses. This intervention consists of improving patients' self-management skills through psychoeducation; supporting providers' decision making through simplified practice guidelines; and enhancing access to care, continuity of care, and information flow through the use of a nurse care coordinator. In this article, which is part I of a two-part report, the authors summarize the conceptual background and development of the intervention, describe the design of a three-year, 11-site randomized effectiveness trial, and report data describing its successful implementation. Trial design emphasized aspects of effectiveness to support generalizability of the findings and eventual dissemination of the intervention. Part II (see companion article, this issue) reports clinical, functional, and overall cost outcomes of the trial.
Topic(s):
Financing & Sustainability
See topic collection
Reference Links: 
View the DOI record for Collaborative care for bipolar disorder: Part I. Intervention and implementation in a randomized effectiveness trial
View DOI Record
View the PubMed citation for Collaborative care for bipolar disorder: Part I. Intervention and implementation in a randomized effectiveness trial2206
Collaborative care for children with ADHD symptoms: A randomized comparative effectiveness trial
Type: Journal Article
Year: 2015
Publication Place: United States
Topic(s):
Healthcare Disparities
See topic collection
, Education & Workforce
See topic collection
Reference Links:
View the DOI record for Collaborative care for children with ADHD symptoms: A randomized comparative effectiveness trial
View DOI Record
View the PubMed citation for Collaborative care for children with ADHD symptoms: A randomized comparative effectiveness trial2207
Collaborative care for comorbid depression and diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Type: Journal Article
Year: 2014
Publication Place: England
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: The collaborative care model is recommended for depression in adults with a chronic physical health problem like diabetes. We sought to systematically assess the effect of collaborative care on depression and glycaemia in adults with comorbid depression and diabetes to inform guidelines and practice. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Health Source Nursing, MEDLINE, PsychINFO and reference lists of retrieved articles published before August 2013. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on collaborative care (ie, coordinated multidisciplinary model of care) for depression that reported the effects on depression and glycaemic outcomes in adults with comorbid clinically relevant depression and diabetes were eligible. DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: Data on the mean difference in depression and glycaemic outcomes were extracted and pooled using random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Seven RCTs included for review reported effects on depression outcomes in 1895 participants, and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level in 1556 participants. Collaborative care significantly improved the depression score (standardised mean difference was -0.32 (95% CI -0.53 to -0.11); I(2)=79%) and HbA1c level (weighted mean difference was -0.33% (95% CI -0.66% to -0.00%); I(2)=72.9%) compared with control conditions. Depression remission did not predict better glycaemic control across studies. CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence from short-to-medium term RCTs predominantly conducted in the USA suggests that collaborative care for depression significantly improves both depression and glycaemia outcomes, independently, in people with comorbid depression and diabetes.
Topic(s):
General Literature
See topic collection
Reference Links:
View the DOI record for Collaborative care for comorbid depression and diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
View DOI Record
View the PubMed citation for Collaborative care for comorbid depression and diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis2208
Collaborative care for depressed patients with chronic medical conditions: a randomized trial in Puerto Rico
Type: Journal Article
Year: 2010
Publication Place: United States
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: This study examined whether a collaborative care model for depression would improve clinical and functional outcomes for depressed patients with chronic general medical conditions in primary care practices in Puerto Rico. METHODS: A total of 179 primary care patients with major depression and chronic general medical conditions were randomly assigned to receive collaborative care or usual care. The collaborative care intervention involved enhanced collaboration among physicians, mental health specialists, and care managers paired with depression-specific treatment guidelines, patient education, and follow-up. In usual care, study personnel informed the patient and provider of the diagnosis and encouraged patients to discuss treatment options with their provider. Depression severity was assessed with the Hopkins Symptom Checklist; social functioning was assessed with the 36-item Short Form. RESULTS: Compared with usual care, collaborative care significantly reduced depressive symptoms and improved social functioning in the six months after randomization. Integration of collaborative care in primary care practices considerably increased depressed patients' use of mental health services. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care significantly improved clinical symptoms and functional status of depressed patients with coexisting chronic general medical conditions receiving treatment for depression in primary care practices in Puerto Rico. These findings highlight the promise of the collaborative care model for strengthening the relationship between mental health and primary care services in Puerto Rico.
Topic(s):
General Literature
See topic collection
Reference Links:
View the DOI record for Collaborative care for depressed patients with chronic medical conditions: a randomized trial in Puerto Rico
View DOI Record
View the PubMed citation for Collaborative care for depressed patients with chronic medical conditions: a randomized trial in Puerto Rico2209
Collaborative Care for Depression among Patients with Limited English Proficiency: a Systematic Review
Type: Journal Article
Year: 2018
Publication Place: United States
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) have high rates of depression, yet face challenges accessing effective care in outpatient settings. We undertook a systematic review to investigate the effectiveness of the collaborative care model for depression for LEP patients in primary care. METHODS: We queried online PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL and EMBASE databases (January 1, 2000, to June 10, 2017) for quantitative studies comparing collaborative care to usual care to treat depression in adults with LEP in primary care. We evaluated the impact of collaborative care on depressive symptoms or on depression treatment. Two reviewers independently extracted key data from the studies and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane bias and quality assessment tool (RCTs) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (non-RCTs). RESULTS: Of 86 titles identified, 15 were included (representing 9 studies: 5 RCTs, 3 cohort studies, and 1 case-control study). Studies included 4859 participants; 2679 (55%) reported LEP. The majority spoke Spanish (93%). The wide variability in study design and outcome definitions precluded performing a meta-analysis. Follow-up ranged from 3 months to 2 years. Three of four high-quality RCTs reported that 13-25% more patients had improved depressive symptoms when treated with culturally tailored collaborative care compared to usual care; the last had high treatment in the control arm and found equal improvement. Two non-RCT studies suggest that Spanish-speaking patients may benefit as much as, if not more than, English-speaking patients treated with collaborative care. The remaining studies reported increased receipt of preferred depression treatment (therapy vs. antidepressants) in the intervention groups. Eight of nine studies used bilingual providers to deliver the intervention. DISCUSSION: While limited by the number and variability of studies, the available research suggests that collaborative care for depression delivered by bilingual providers may be more effective than usual care among patients with LEP. Implementation studies of collaborative care, particularly among Asian and non-Spanish-speakers, are needed.
Topic(s):
Healthcare Disparities
See topic collection
Reference Links:
View the DOI record for Collaborative Care for Depression among Patients with Limited English Proficiency: a Systematic Review
View DOI Record
View the PubMed citation for Collaborative Care for Depression among Patients with Limited English Proficiency: a Systematic Review2210
Collaborative Care for Depression among Patients with Limited English Proficiency: a Systematic Review
Type: Journal Article
Year: 2018
Publication Place: United States
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) have high rates of depression, yet face challenges accessing effective care in outpatient settings. We undertook a systematic review to investigate the effectiveness of the collaborative care model for depression for LEP patients in primary care. METHODS: We queried online PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL and EMBASE databases (January 1, 2000, to June 10, 2017) for quantitative studies comparing collaborative care to usual care to treat depression in adults with LEP in primary care. We evaluated the impact of collaborative care on depressive symptoms or on depression treatment. Two reviewers independently extracted key data from the studies and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane bias and quality assessment tool (RCTs) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (non-RCTs). RESULTS: Of 86 titles identified, 15 were included (representing 9 studies: 5 RCTs, 3 cohort studies, and 1 case-control study). Studies included 4859 participants; 2679 (55%) reported LEP. The majority spoke Spanish (93%). The wide variability in study design and outcome definitions precluded performing a meta-analysis. Follow-up ranged from 3 months to 2 years. Three of four high-quality RCTs reported that 13-25% more patients had improved depressive symptoms when treated with culturally tailored collaborative care compared to usual care; the last had high treatment in the control arm and found equal improvement. Two non-RCT studies suggest that Spanish-speaking patients may benefit as much as, if not more than, English-speaking patients treated with collaborative care. The remaining studies reported increased receipt of preferred depression treatment (therapy vs. antidepressants) in the intervention groups. Eight of nine studies used bilingual providers to deliver the intervention. DISCUSSION: While limited by the number and variability of studies, the available research suggests that collaborative care for depression delivered by bilingual providers may be more effective than usual care among patients with LEP. Implementation studies of collaborative care, particularly among Asian and non-Spanish-speakers, are needed.
Topic(s):
Healthcare Disparities
See topic collection
Reference Links:
View the DOI record for Collaborative Care for Depression among Patients with Limited English Proficiency: a Systematic Review
View DOI Record
View the PubMed citation for Collaborative Care for Depression among Patients with Limited English Proficiency: a Systematic Review2211
Collaborative care for depression and anxiety
Type: Journal Article
Year: 2014
Publication Place: United States
Topic(s):
General Literature
See topic collection
2212
Collaborative care for depression and anxiety problems
Type: Journal Article
Year: 2012
Publication Place: England
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Common mental health problems, such as depression and anxiety, are estimated to affect up to 15% of the UK population at any one time, and health care systems worldwide need to implement interventions to reduce the impact and burden of these conditions. Collaborative care is a complex intervention based on chronic disease management models that may be effective in the management of these common mental health problems. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of collaborative care for patients with depression or anxiety. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases to February 2012: The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group (CCDAN) trials registers (CCDANCTR-References and CCDANCTR-Studies) which include relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from MEDLINE (1950 to present), EMBASE (1974 to present), PsycINFO (1967 to present) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, all years); the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (ICTRP); ClinicalTrials.gov; and CINAHL (to November 2010 only). We screened the reference lists of reports of all included studies and published systematic reviews for reports of additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of collaborative care for participants of all ages with depression or anxiety. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent researchers extracted data using a standardised data extraction sheet. Two independent researchers made 'Risk of bias' assessments using criteria from The Cochrane Collaboration. We combined continuous measures of outcome using standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We combined dichotomous measures using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the results. MAIN RESULTS: We included seventy-nine RCTs (including 90 relevant comparisons) involving 24,308 participants in the review. Studies varied in terms of risk of bias.The results of primary analyses demonstrated significantly greater improvement in depression outcomes for adults with depression treated with the collaborative care model in the short-term (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.27; RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.43), medium-term (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.15; RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.48), and long-term (SMD -0.35, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.24; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.41). However, these significant benefits were not demonstrated into the very long-term (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27).The results also demonstrated significantly greater improvement in anxiety outcomes for adults with anxiety treated with the collaborative care model in the short-term (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.17; RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.87), medium-term (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.19; RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.69), and long-term (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.06; RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.42). No comparisons examined the effects of the intervention on anxiety outcomes in the very long-term.There was evidence of benefit in secondary outcomes including medication use, mental health quality of life, and patient satisfaction, although there was less evidence of benefit in physical quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care is associated with significant improvement in depression and anxiety outcomes compared with usual care, and represents a useful addition to clinical pathways for adult patients with depression and anxiety.
Topic(s):
General Literature
See topic collection
Reference Links: View the PubMed citation for Collaborative care for depression and anxiety problems
2215
Collaborative care for depression in European countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Type: Journal Article
Year: 2014
Publication Place: England
Topic(s):
General Literature
See topic collection
Reference Links:
View the DOI record for Collaborative care for depression in European countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis
View DOI Record
View the PubMed citation for Collaborative care for depression in European countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis2217
Collaborative care for depression in primary care: how psychiatry could "troubleshoot" current treatments and practices
Type: Journal Article
Year: 2013
Publication Place: United States
Abstract: The bulk of mental health services for people with depression are provided in primary care settings. Primary care providers prescribe 79 percent of antidepressant medications and see 60 percent of people being treated for depression in the United States, and they do that with little support from specialist services. Depression is not effectively managed in the primary care setting. Collaborative care based on a team approach, a population health perspective, and measurement-based care has been proven to treat depression more effectively than care as usual in a variety of settings and for different populations, and it increases people's access to medications and behavioral therapies. Psychiatry has the responsibility of supporting the primary care sector in delivering mental health services by disseminating collaborative care approaches under recent initiatives and opportunities made possible by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Topic(s):
General Literature
See topic collection
2219
Collaborative Care for Depression of Adults and Adolescents: Measuring the Effectiveness of Screening and Treatment Uptake
Type: Journal Article
Year: 2019
Publication Place: United States
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: This study analyzed effectiveness of screening, referrals, and treatment uptake of a collaborative care for depression intervention across 10 primary care clinics in Chicago. METHODS: Between November 2016 and December 2017, patients (N=25,369) were screened with the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 on the basis of an eligibility algorithm. Electronic health record data were analyzed for sample characteristics, screening rates, referrals, and treatment pathways. To identify disparities, a test of proportions was conducted between eligible and screened patients as well as referred and treated patients. RESULTS: Screenings, referrals, and uptake occurred proportionately across subgroups except for patients ages 12-17. Adolescent age was associated with disproportionate Patient Health Questionnaire-9 screenings and with treatment disengagement. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention shows promise in expanding access to care and reducing disparities. Greater access to psychotherapies and innovative treatment modalities, particularly for adolescents, may improve overall treatment uptake.
Topic(s):
Healthcare Disparities
See topic collection
2220
Collaborative Care for Depression of Adults and Adolescents: Measuring the Effectiveness of Screening and Treatment Uptake
Type: Journal Article
Year: 2019
Publication Place: United States
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: This study analyzed effectiveness of screening, referrals, and treatment uptake of a collaborative care for depression intervention across 10 primary care clinics in Chicago. METHODS: Between November 2016 and December 2017, patients (N=25,369) were screened with the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 on the basis of an eligibility algorithm. Electronic health record data were analyzed for sample characteristics, screening rates, referrals, and treatment pathways. To identify disparities, a test of proportions was conducted between eligible and screened patients as well as referred and treated patients. RESULTS: Screenings, referrals, and uptake occurred proportionately across subgroups except for patients ages 12-17. Adolescent age was associated with disproportionate Patient Health Questionnaire-9 screenings and with treatment disengagement. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention shows promise in expanding access to care and reducing disparities. Greater access to psychotherapies and innovative treatment modalities, particularly for adolescents, may improve overall treatment uptake.
Topic(s):
Healthcare Disparities
See topic collection