4.4 Article

Collaborative Depression Trial (CADET): multi-centre randomised controlled trial of collaborative care for depression - study protocol

Journal

BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH
Volume 9, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-9-188

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council in the UK [G0701013]
  2. MRC [G0401181, G0701013] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [G0701013, G0401181] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. National Institute for Health Research [CL-2007-25-001] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Comprising of both organisational and patient level components, collaborative care is a potentially powerful intervention for improving depression treatment in UK primary Care. However, as previous models have been developed and evaluated in the United States, it is necessary to establish the effect of collaborative care in the UK in order to determine whether this innovative treatment model can replicate benefits for patients outside the US. This Phase III trial was preceded by a Phase II patient level RCT, following the MRC Complex Intervention Framework. Methods/Design: A multi-centre controlled trial with cluster-randomised allocation of GP practices. GP practices will be randomised to usual care control or to collaborative care - a combination of case manager coordinated support and brief psychological treatment, enhanced specialist and GP communication. The primary outcome will be symptoms of depression as assessed by the PHQ-9. Discussion: If collaborative care is demonstrated to be effective we will have evidence to enable the NHS to substantially improve the organisation of depressed patients in primary care, and to assist primary care providers to deliver a model of enhanced depression care which is both effective and acceptable to patients. Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN32829227

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available