Jonna F van Eck van der Sluijs1, Hilde Castelijns2, Vera Eijsbroek3, Cees A Th Rijnders3, Harm W J van Marwijk4, Christina M van der Feltz-Cornelis5. 1. Clinical Centre of Excellence for Body, Mind and Health, GGz Breburg, Tilburg, The Netherlands; Tranzo Department, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands; Department of Residency Training, GGz Breburg, Tilburg, The Netherlands. 2. Centre for Mental Health Care, PsyQ Tilburg-Parnassia Groep, Tilburg, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Residency Training, GGz Breburg, Tilburg, The Netherlands. 4. Centre for Primary Care, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Department of General Practice & Elderly Care Medicine and the EMGO+, Institute for Health and Care Research of VU University Medical Centre (VUmc), Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Clinical Centre of Excellence for Body, Mind and Health, GGz Breburg, Tilburg, The Netherlands; Tranzo Department, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands. Electronic address: C.M.vdrFeltz@uvt.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Collaborative care (CC) improves depressive symptoms in people with comorbid depressive disorder in chronic medical conditions, but its effect on physical symptoms has not yet systematically been reviewed. This study aims to do so. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and the European and US Clinical Trial Registers. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CC compared to care as usual (CAU), in primary care and general hospital setting, reporting on physical and depressive symptoms as outcomes. Overall treatment effects were estimated for illness burden, physical outcomes and depression, respectively. RESULTS: Twenty RCTs were included, with N=4774 patients. The overall effect size of CC versus CAU for illness burden was OR 1.64 (95%CI 1.47;1.83), d=0.27 (95%CI 0.21;0.33). Best physical outcomes in CC were found for hypertension with comorbiddepression. Overall, depression outcomes were better for CC than for CAU. Moderator analyses did not yield statistically significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: CC is more effective than CAU in terms of illness burden, physical outcomes and depression, in patients with comorbid depression in chronic medical conditions. More research covering multiple medical conditions is needed. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis has been registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on February 19th 2016: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/DisplayPDF.php?ID=CRD42016035553.
OBJECTIVE: Collaborative care (CC) improves depressive symptoms in people with comorbid depressive disorder in chronic medical conditions, but its effect on physical symptoms has not yet systematically been reviewed. This study aims to do so. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and the European and US Clinical Trial Registers. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CC compared to care as usual (CAU), in primary care and general hospital setting, reporting on physical and depressive symptoms as outcomes. Overall treatment effects were estimated for illness burden, physical outcomes and depression, respectively. RESULTS: Twenty RCTs were included, with N=4774 patients. The overall effect size of CC versus CAU for illness burden was OR 1.64 (95%CI 1.47;1.83), d=0.27 (95%CI 0.21;0.33). Best physical outcomes in CC were found for hypertension with comorbiddepression. Overall, depression outcomes were better for CC than for CAU. Moderator analyses did not yield statistically significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: CC is more effective than CAU in terms of illness burden, physical outcomes and depression, in patients with comorbid depression in chronic medical conditions. More research covering multiple medical conditions is needed. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis has been registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on February 19th 2016: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/DisplayPDF.php?ID=CRD42016035553.
Authors: Danielle H Rochlin; Chuan-Mei Lee; Claudia Scheuter; Terry Platchek; Robert M Kaplan; Arnold Milstein Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2020-09-22 Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Kenneth E Freedland; Judith A Skala; Robert M Carney; Brian C Steinmeyer; Eugene H Rubin; Michael W Rich Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2022-06-21 Impact factor: 10.447
Authors: Karen E Swietek; Marisa Elena Domino; Lexie R Grove; Chris Beadles; Alan R Ellis; Joel F Farley; Carlos Jackson; Jesse C Lichstein; C Annette DuBard Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2021-08-17 Impact factor: 3.734
Authors: Olivia E Bogucki; Mark D Williams; Leif I Solberg; Rebecca C Rossom; Craig N Sawchuk Journal: Curr Psychiatry Rep Date: 2020-07-14 Impact factor: 5.285
Authors: Christina van der Feltz-Cornelis; Sarah F Allen; Richard I G Holt; Richard Roberts; Arie Nouwen; Norman Sartorius Journal: Brain Behav Date: 2020-12-04 Impact factor: 3.405