Search

Background: Collaborative care for severe mental illness (SMI) is a community-based intervention that promotes interdisciplinary working across primary and secondary care. Collaborative care interventions aim to improve the physical and/or mental health care of individuals with SMI. This is an update of a 2013 Cochrane review, based on new searches of the literature, which includes an additional seven studies., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of collaborative care approaches in comparison with standard care (or other non-collaborative care interventions) for people with diagnoses of SMI who are living in the community., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Study-Based Register of Trials (10 February 2021). We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders (CCMD) controlled trials register (all available years to 6 June 2016). Subsequent searches on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO together with the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (with an overlap) were run on 17 December 2021., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where interventions described as 'collaborative care' were compared with 'standard care' for adults (18+ years) living in the community with a diagnosis of SMI. SMI was defined as schizophrenia, other types of schizophrenia-like psychosis or bipolar affective disorder. The primary outcomes of interest were: quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions at 12 months follow-up., Data Collection and Analysis: Pairs of authors independently extracted data. We assessed the quality and certainty of the evidence using RoB 2 (for the primary outcomes) and GRADE. We compared treatment effects between collaborative care and standard care. We divided outcomes into short-term (up to six months), medium-term (seven to 12 months) and long-term (over 12 months). For dichotomous data we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and for continuous data we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used random-effects meta-analyses due to substantial levels of heterogeneity across trials. We created a summary of findings table using GRADEpro., Main Results: Eight RCTs (1165 participants) are included in this review. Two met the criteria for type A collaborative care (intervention comprised of the four core components). The remaining six met the criteria for type B (described as collaborative care by the trialists, but not comprised of the four core components). The composition and purpose of the interventions varied across studies. For most outcomes there was low- or very low-certainty evidence. We found three studies that assessed the quality of life of participants at 12 months. Quality of life was measured using the SF-12 and the WHOQOL-BREF and the mean endpoint mental health component scores were reported at 12 months. Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (mental health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.32; 3 RCTs, 227 participants). Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (physical health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.33; 3 RCTs, 237 participants). Furthermore, in the medium term (at 12 months) low-certainty evidence did not show a difference between collaborative care and standard care in mental state (binary) (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.28; 1 RCT, 253 participants) or in the risk of being admitted to a psychiatric hospital at 12 months (RR 5.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 39.57; 1 RCT, 253 participants). One study indicated an improvement in disability (proxy for social functioning) at 12 months in the collaborative care arm compared to usual care (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.95; 1 RCT, 253 participants); we deemed this low-certainty evidence. Personal recovery and satisfaction/experience of care outcomes were not reported in any of the included studies. The data from one study indicated that the collaborative care treatment was more expensive than standard care (mean difference (MD) international dollars (Int$) 493.00, 95% CI 345.41 to 640.59) in the short term. Another study found the collaborative care intervention to be slightly less expensive at three years., Authors' Conclusions: This review does not provide evidence to indicate that collaborative care is more effective than standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) in relation to our primary outcomes (quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions). The evidence would be improved by better reporting, higher-quality RCTs and the assessment of underlying mechanisms of collaborative care. We advise caution in utilising the information in this review to assess the effectiveness of collaborative care., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Background: Individuals living with severe mental illness can have significant emotional, physical and social challenges. Collaborative care combines clinical and organisational components., Aims: We tested whether a primary care-based collaborative care model (PARTNERS) would improve quality of life for people with diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or other psychoses, compared with usual care., Method: We conducted a general practice-based, cluster randomised controlled superiority trial. Practices were recruited from four English regions and allocated (1:1) to intervention or control. Individuals receiving limited input in secondary care or who were under primary care only were eligible. The 12-month PARTNERS intervention incorporated person-centred coaching support and liaison work. The primary outcome was quality of life as measured by the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA)., Results: We allocated 39 general practices, with 198 participants, to the PARTNERS intervention (20 practices, 116 participants) or control (19 practices, 82 participants). Primary outcome data were available for 99 (85.3%) intervention and 71 (86.6%) control participants. Mean change in overall MANSA score did not differ between the groups (intervention: 0.25, s.d. 0.73; control: 0.21, s.d. 0.86; estimated fully adjusted between-group difference 0.03, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.31; P = 0.819). Acute mental health episodes (safety outcome) included three crises in the intervention group and four in the control group., Conclusions: There was no evidence of a difference in quality of life, as measured with the MANSA, between those receiving the PARTNERS intervention and usual care. Shifting care to primary care was not associated with increased adverse outcomes.

Background: Current NHS policy encourages an integrated approach to provision of mental and physical care for individuals with long term mental health problems. The 'PARTNERS2' complex intervention is designed to support individuals with psychosis in a primary care setting., Aim: The trial will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the PARTNERS2 intervention., Design & Setting: This is a cluster randomised controlled superiority trial comparing collaborative care (PARTNERS2) with usual care, with an internal pilot to assess feasibility. The setting will be primary care within four trial recruitment areas: Birmingham & Solihull, Cornwall, Plymouth, and Somerset. GP practices are randomised 1:1 to either (a) the PARTNERS2 intervention plus modified standard care ('intervention'); or (b) standard care only ('control')., Method: PARTNERS2 is a flexible, general practice-based, person-centred, coaching-based intervention aimed at addressing mental health, physical health, and social care needs. Two hundred eligible individuals from 39 GP practices are taking part. They were recruited through identification from secondary and primary care databases. The primary hypothesis is quality of life (QOL). Secondary outcomes include: mental wellbeing, time use, recovery, and process of physical care. A process evaluation will assess fidelity of intervention delivery, test hypothesised mechanisms of action, and look for unintended consequences. An economic evaluation will estimate its cost-effectiveness. Intervention delivery and follow-up have been modified during the COVID-19 pandemic., Conclusion: The overarching aim is to establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the model for adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, bipolar, or other types of psychoses., (Copyright © 2021, The Authors.)

Background: There is global interest in the reconfiguration of community mental health services, including primary care, to improve clinical and cost effectiveness., Aims: This study seeks to describe patterns of service use, continuity of care, health risks, physical healthcare monitoring and the balance between primary and secondary mental healthcare for people with severe mental illness in receipt of secondary mental healthcare in the UK., Method: We conducted an epidemiological medical records review in three UK sites. We identified 297 cases randomly selected from the three participating mental health services. Data were manually extracted from electronic patient medical records from both secondary and primary care, for a 2-year period (2012-2014). Continuous data were summarised by mean and s.d. or median and interquartile range (IQR). Categorical data were summarised as percentages., Results: The majority of care was from secondary care practitioners: of the 18 210 direct contacts recorded, 76% were from secondary care (median, 36.5; IQR, 14-68) and 24% were from primary care (median, 10; IQR, 5-20). There was evidence of poor longitudinal continuity: in primary care, 31% of people had poor longitudinal continuity (Modified Modified Continuity Index ≤0.5), and 43% had a single named care coordinator in secondary care services over the 2 years., Conclusions: The study indicates scope for improvement in supporting mental health service delivery in primary care. Greater knowledge of how care is organised presents an opportunity to ensure some rebalancing of the care that all people with severe mental illness receive, when they need it. A future publication will examine differences between the three sites that participated in this study.

Background: Relapse (the re-emergence of depression symptoms before full recovery) is common in depression and relapse prevention strategies are not well researched in primary care settings. Collaborative care is effective for treating acute phase depression but little is known about the use of relapse prevention strategies in collaborative care. We undertook a systematic review to identify and characterise relapse prevention strategies in the context of collaborative care., Methods: We searched for Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) of collaborative care for depression. In addition to published material, we obtained provider and patient manuals from authors to provide more detail on intervention content. We reported the extent to which collaborative care interventions addressed four relapse prevention components., Results: 93 RCTs were identified. 31 included a formal relapse prevention plan; 42 had proactive monitoring and follow-up after the acute phase; 39 reported strategies for optimising sustained medication adherence; and 20 of the trials reported psychological or psycho-educational treatments persisting beyond the acute phase or focussing on long-term health/relapse prevention. 30 (32.3%) did not report relapse prevention approaches., Limitations: We did not receive trial materials for approximately half of the trials, which limited our ability to identify relevant features of intervention content., Conclusion: Relapse is a significant risk amongst people treated for depression and interventions are needed that specifically address and minimise this risk. Given the advantages of collaborative care as a delivery system for depression care, there is scope for more consistency and increased effort to implement and evaluate relapse prevention strategies., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Objective: Previous guidelines and planning documents have identified the key role primary care providers play in delivering mental health care, including the recommendation from the WHO that meeting the mental health needs of the population in many low and middle income countries will only be achieved through greater integration of mental health services within general medical settings. This position paper aims to build upon this work and present a global framework for enhancing mental health care delivered within primary care. Methods: This paper synthesizes previous guidelines, empirical data from the literature and experiences of the authors in varied clinical settings to identify core principles and the key elements of successful collaboration, and organizes these into practical guidelines that can be adapted to any setting. Results: The paper proposes a three-step approach. The first is mental health services that any primary care provider can deliver with or without the presence of a mental health professional. Second is practical ways that effective collaboration can enhance this care. The third looks at wider system changes required to support these new roles and how better collaboration can lead to new responses to respond to challenges facing all mental health systems. Conclusions: This simple framework can be applied in any jurisdiction or country to enhance the detection, treatment, and prevention of mental health problems, reinforcing the role of the primary care provider in delivering care and showing how collaborative care can lead to better outcomes for people with mental health and addiction problems.

Background: 'Cascade training' or 'train-the-trainers' has been widely utilised in the dissemination of information and expertise in health and social care, but with little examination of the work required for optimal delivery. National suicide prevention strategies commonly include such training initiatives., Methods: A qualitative study to characterise the work, according to the concepts of Normalization Process Theory, required to disseminate STORM, a model of suicide prevention training across Scotland, and then implement it within organisations. This utilised a cascade style 'train-the trainers' intervention delivered as part of the Choose Life suicide prevention strategy in Scotland during 2008-11. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 19 training facilitators, 30 of their group participants within organisations and 11 local managers within health boards in Scotland., Results: Crucial to the process of a cascade training approach to implementing suicide prevention within an organisation was the multi-layered activity of constructing coherence of the intervention at every level in order to prevent dilution of the training. This necessitated collaborative work within and between groups of actors- managers, facilitators and participants. Where facilitators were effectively engaged in their role, confident in their ability to train, supported by supervision and possessed the leadership skills to engage both with participants and their local context to deliver training, there was evidence of both successful delivery and embedding within the organisation. However, there was little systematic evidence of institutional level appraisal- crucial to truly implementing a novel intervention within the system - despite efforts at local managerial engagement., Conclusions: Successful cascade or train-the-trainer implementation of an intervention requires extensive collaborative work to take place between and within groups of actors at all levels of an organization from those working at policy level to the 'coalface'. A priori application of Normalization Process Theory, to specify aims and goals for the necessary work to be carried out between different groups of actors, would assist in embedding a novel working practice at all levels. Future national training strategies for suicide prevention should address what is required to establish a flourishing culture of high-quality skills acquisition and development within healthcare organisations.

Background: The health service delivery framework collaborative care is an effective intervention for depression. However, uncertainties remain about how to optimise its delivery at scale. Structured case management is a core component of collaborative care; its delivery via the telephone may improve access., Aims: To examine using meta-regression if telephone delivered case management diminishes the clinical effectiveness of collaborative care on depressive symptoms and anti-depressant use relative to face-to-face delivery methods., Methods: Randomised controlled trials were eligible if they included collaborative care interventions for adults with depression identified using self-report measures or diagnostic interviews and reported depression outcomes. Sociodemographics, intervention characteristics, depressive symptoms, and anti-depressant use were extracted. Random effects univariable and multivariable meta-regression analyses were used to examine the moderating effect of telephone delivered case-management on outcomes., Results: Ninety-four trials were identified comprising of 103 comparisons across 24, 132 participants with depression outcomes and 67 comparisons from 15,367 participants with anti-depressant use outcomes. Telephone delivered case management did not diminish the effects of collaborative care on depressive symptoms (β = -0.01, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.10; p = 0.86). Telephone delivered case management decreased anti-depressant medication use (relative risk 0.76, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.92; p = 0.005); this effect remained when assessed simultaneously alongside other study-level moderators of collaborative care., Conclusion: Using remote platforms such as the telephone to deliver case management may be a feasible way to implement collaborative care with no loss of effectiveness on depressive symptoms. However, adherence to anti-depressant medication may decrease when telephone case management is used., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Many people diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar or other psychoses in England receive the majority of their healthcare from primary care. Primary care practitioners may not be well equipped to meet their needs and there is often poor communication with secondary care. Collaborative care is a promising alternative model but has not been trialled specifically with this service user group in England. Collaborative care for other mental health conditions has not been widely implemented despite evidence of its effectiveness. We carried out a formative evaluation of the PARTNERS model of collaborative care, with the aim of establishing barriers and facilitators to delivery, identifying implementation support requirements and testing the initial programme theory., Methods: The PARTNERS intervention was delivered on a small scale in three sites. Qualitative data was collected from primary and secondary care practitioners, service users and family carers, using semi-structured interviews, session recordings and tape-assisted recall. Deductive and inductive thematic analysis was carried out; themes were compared to the programme theory and used to inform an implementation support strategy., Results: Key components of the intervention that were not consistently delivered as intended were: interaction with primary care teams, the use of coaching, and supervision. Barriers and facilitators identified were related to service commitment, care partner skills, supervisor understanding and service user motivation. An implementation support strategy was developed, with researcher facilitation of communication and supervision and additional training for practitioners. Some components of the intervention were not experienced as intended; this appeared to reflect difficulties with operationalising the intervention. Analysis of data relating to the intended outcomes of the intervention indicated that the mechanisms proposed in the programme theory had operated as expected., Conclusions: Additional implementation support is likely to be required for the PARTNERS model to be delivered; the effectiveness of such support may be affected by practitioner and service user readiness to change. There is also a need to test the programme theory more fully. These issues will be addressed in the process evaluation of our full trial., Trial Registration: ISRCTN95702682 , 26 October 2017.

Objective: Disorders characterized by "distressing unexplained somatic symptoms" are challenging. In the ICD-11 Primary Health Care (PHC) Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management of Mental Disorders (ICD-11 PHC), a new category, bodily stress syndrome (BSS), was included to diagnose patients presenting unexplained somatic symptoms. The present study investigated the association of BSS with anxiety, depression, and four subgroups of physical symptoms in a Brazilian primary health care (PHC) sample., Methodology: As part of the international ICD-11 PHC study, 338 patients were evaluated by their primary care physicians, followed by testing with Clinical Interview Schedule (CIS-R) and World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule, Version 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0). BSS was diagnosed in the presence of at least three somatic symptoms associated with incapacity. The association between anxiety, depression, and four subgroups of physical symptoms with being a BSS case was analyzed., Results: The number of somatic symptoms was high in the overall sample of 338 patients (mean = 8.4), but even higher in the 131 BSS patients (10.2; p < 0.001). Most BSS patients (57.3%) had at least three symptoms from two, three, or four subgroups, and these were associated with anxiety and depression in 80.9% of these patients. The symptom subgroup most strongly associated with "being a BSS" case was the non-specific group (OR = 6.51; 95%CI 1.65-24.34), followed by musculoskeletal (OR = 2,31; 95%CI 1.19-4.72)., Conclusion: Somatic symptoms were frequent in a sample of PHC patients in Brazil. In the present sample, one third were BSS cases and met the criteria for at least two symptom subgroups, supporting the hypothesis that different functional symptoms are related to each other.

Background: Collaborative care can support the treatment of depression in people with long-term conditions, but long-term benefits and costs are unknown.AimsTo explore the long-term (24-month) effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care in people with mental-physical multimorbidity., Method: A cluster randomised trial compared collaborative care (integrated physical and mental healthcare) with usual care for depression alongside diabetes and/or coronary heart disease. Depression symptoms were measured by the symptom checklist-depression scale (SCL-D13). The economic evaluation was from the perspective of the English National Health Service., Results: 191 participants were allocated to collaborative care and 196 to usual care. At 24 months, the mean SCL-D13 score was 0.27 (95% CI, -0.48 to -0.06) lower in the collaborative care group alongside a gain of 0.14 (95% CI, 0.06-0.21) quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The cost per QALY gained was £13 069., Conclusions: In the long term, collaborative care reduces depression and is potentially cost-effective at internationally accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds.Declaration of interestNone.

Background: The World Health Organization is revising the classification of common mental disorders in primary care for ICD-11. Major changes from the ICD-10 primary care version have been proposed for: (i) mood and anxiety disorders; and (ii) presentations of multiple somatic symptoms (bodily stress syndrome). This three-part field study explored the implementation of the revised classification by primary care physicians (PCPs) in five countries., Methods: Participating PCPs in Brazil, China, Mexico, Pakistan and Spain were asked to use the revised classification, first in patients that they suspected might be psychologically distressed (Part 1), and second in patients with multiple somatic symptoms causing distress or disability not wholly attributable to a known physical pathology, or with high levels of health anxiety (Part 2). Patients referred to Part 1 or Part 2 underwent a structured diagnostic interview. Part 3 consisted of feedback from PCPs regarding the classification., Results: In Part 1, anxious depression was the most common disorder among referred patients. PCPs assigned the highest severity ratings to anxious depression, and the next highest to current depression; current anxiety was rated as least severe. Considerable overlap was found between bodily stress syndrome (BSS) and health anxiety (HA). The psychiatric interview recorded higher rates of mood and anxiety disorders diagnoses among patients with BSS than did PCPs. PCPs' satisfaction with the revised classification was high., Conclusions: Results generally supported the inclusion of the new categories of anxious depression, BSS and HA for ICD-11 PHC and suggested that PCPs could implement these categories satisfactorily., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The English National Health Service (NHS) has significantly extended the supply of evidence based psychological interventions in primary care for people experiencing common mental health problems. Yet despite the extra resources, the accessibility of services for 'under-served' ethnic and religious minority groups, is considerably short of the levels of access that may be necessary to offset the health inequalities created by their different exposure to services, resulting in negative health outcomes. This paper offers a critical reflection upon an initiative that sought to improve access to an NHS funded primary care mental health service to one 'under-served' population, an Orthodox Jewish community in the North West of England., Methods: A combination of qualitative and quantitative data were drawn upon including naturally occurring data, observational notes, e-mail correspondence, routinely collected demographic data and clinical outcomes measures, as well as written feedback and recorded discussions with 12 key informants., Results: Improvements in access to mental health care for some people from the Orthodox Jewish community were achieved through the collaborative efforts of a distributed leadership team. The members of this leadership team were a self-selecting group of stakeholders which had a combination of local knowledge, cultural understanding, power to negotiate on behalf of their respective constituencies and expertise in mental health care. Through a process of dialogic engagement the team was able to work with the community to develop a bespoke service that accommodated its wish to maintain a distinct sense of cultural otherness., Conclusions: This critical reflection illustrates how dialogic engagement can further the mechanisms of candidacy, concordance and recursivity that are associated with improvements in access to care in under-served sections of the population, whilst simultaneously recognising the limits of constructive dialogue. Dialogue can change the dynamic of community engagement. However, the full alignment of the goals of differing constituencies may not always be possible, due the complex interaction between the multiple positions and understandings of stakeholders that are involved and the need to respect the other'-s' autonomy.

Background: In this field study of WHO's revised classification of mental disorders for primary care settings, the ICD-11 PHC, we tested the usefulness of two five-item screening scales for anxiety and depression to be administered in primary care settings., Methods: The study was conducted in primary care settings in four large middle-income countries. Primary care physicians (PCPs) referred individuals who they suspected might be psychologically distressed to the study. Screening scales as well as a structured diagnostic interview, the revised Clinical Interview Schedule (CIS-R), adapted for proposed decision rules in ICD-11 PHC, were administered to 1488 participants., Results: A score of 3 or more on one or both screening scale predicted 89.6% of above-threshold mood or anxiety disorder diagnoses on the CIS-R. Anxious depression was the most common CIS-R diagnosis among referred patients. However, there was an exact diagnostic match between the screening scales and the CIS-R in only 62.9% of those with high scores., Limitations: This study was confined to those in whom the PCP suspected psychological distress, so does not provide information about the prevalence of mental disorders in primary care settings., Conclusions: The two five-item screening scales for anxiety and depression provide a practical way for PCPs to evaluate the likelihood of mood and anxiety disorders without paper and pencil measures that are not feasible in many settings. These scales may provide substantially improved case detection as compared to current primary care practice and a realistic alternative to complex diagnostic algorithms used by specialist mental health professionals., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

The objective of this study was to identify the association between emotional distress and social support networks with quality of life in primary care patients. This was a cross-sectional study involving 1,466 patients in the cities of São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 2009/2010. The General Health Questionnaire, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the brief version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life Instrument were used. The Social Support Network Index classified patients with the highest and lowest index as socially integrated or isolated. A bivariate analysis and four multiple linear regressions were conducted for each quality of life outcome. The means scores for the physical, psychological, social relations, and environment domains were, respectively, 64.7; 64.2; 68.5 and 49.1. In the multivariate analysis, the psychological domain was negatively associated with isolation, whereas the social relations and environment domains were positively associated with integration. Integration and isolation proved to be important factors for those in emotional distress as they minimize or maximize negative effects on quality of life.

Objective: A World Health Organization (WHO) field study conducted in five countries assessed proposals for Bodily Stress Syndrome (BSS) and Health Anxiety (HA) for the Primary Health Care Version of ICD-11. BSS requires multiple somatic symptoms not caused by known physical pathology and associated with distress or dysfunction. HA involves persistent, intrusive fears of having an illness or intense preoccupation with and misinterpretation of bodily sensations. This study examined how the proposed descriptions for BSS and HA corresponded to what was observed by working primary care physicians (PCPs) in participating countries, and the relationship of BSS and HA to depressive and anxiety disorders and to disability., Method: PCPs referred patients judged to have BSS or HA, who were then interviewed using a standardized psychiatric interview and a standardized measure of disability., Results: Of 587 patients with BSS or HA, 70.4% were identified as having both conditions. Participants had an average of 10.9 somatic symptoms. Patients who presented somatic symptoms across multiple body systems were more disabled than patients with symptoms in a single system. Most referred patients (78.9%) had co-occurring diagnoses of depression, anxiety, or both. Anxious depression was the most common co-occurring psychological disorder, associated with the greatest disability., Conclusion: Study results indicate the importance of assessing for mood and anxiety disorders among patients who present multiple somatic symptoms without identifiable physical pathology. Although highly co-occurring with each other and with mood and anxiety disorders, BSS and HA represent distinct constructs that correspond to important presentations in primary care., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of collaborative care (vs usual care) for treating depression in patients with diabetes and/or coronary heart disease (CHD)., Setting: 36 primary care general practices in North West England., Participants: 387 participants completed baseline assessment (collaborative care: 191; usual care: 196) and full or partial 4-month follow-up data were captured for 350 (collaborative care: 170; usual care: 180). 62% of participants were male, 14% were non-white. Participants were aged ≥18 years, listed on a Quality and Outcomes Framework register for CHD and/or type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus, with persistent depressive symptoms. Patients with psychosis or type I/II bipolar disorder, actively suicidal, in receipt of services for substance misuse, or already in receipt of psychological therapy for depression were excluded., Intervention: Collaborative care consisted of evidence-based low-intensity psychological treatments, delivered over 3 months and case management by a practice nurse and a Psychological Well Being Practitioner., Outcome Measures: As planned, the primary measure of cost-effectiveness was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY)). A Markov model was constructed to extrapolate the trial results from short-term to long-term (24 months)., Results: The mean cost per participant of collaborative care was £317 (95% CI 284 to 350). Over 24 months, it was estimated that collaborative care was associated with greater healthcare usage costs (net cost £674 (95% CI -30 953 to 38 853)) and QALYs (net QALY gain 0.04 (95% CI -0.46 to 0.54)) than usual care, resulting in a cost per QALY gained of £16 123, and a likelihood of being cost-effective of 0.54 (willingness to pay threshold of £20 000)., Conclusions: Collaborative care is a potentially cost-effective long-term treatment for depression in patients with comorbid physical and mental illness. The estimated cost per QALY gained was below the threshold recommended by English decision-makers. Further, long-term primary research is needed to address uncertainty associated with estimates of cost-effectiveness., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN80309252; Post-results., Competing Interests: All authors had financial support from NIHR for the submitted work. LG had other support from Six Degrees—social enterprise that provides step 2 IAPT services., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Purpose: There is a lack of robust empirical research examining mental disorder and homicide-suicide. Primary care medical records are seldom used in homicide-suicide research. The aims of this study were to describe the characteristics of offenders and victims; determine the prevalence of mental disorder and contact with mental health services and examine adverse events prior to the offence., Methods: This was a mixed-methods study based on a consecutive case series of offences in England and Wales occurring between 2006 and 2008. 60 homicide-suicides were recorded. Data sources included coroner's records, police files, General Practice (GP) and specialist mental health records, and newspaper articles., Results: The results show that most victims were spouse/partners and/or children. Most perpetrators were male (88 %) and most victims were female (77 %). The incidents were commonly preceded by relationship breakdown and separation. 62 % had mental health problems. A quarter visited a GP for emotional distress within a month of the incident. Few had been in recent contact with mental health services before the incident (12 %). Self-harm (26 %) and domestic violence (39 %) were common., Conclusion: In conclusion, GPs cannot be expected to prevent homicide-suicide directly, but they can reduce risk generally, via the treatment of depression and recognising the risks associated with domestic violence.

Background: Many people with mental distress are disadvantaged because care is not available or does not address their needs. In order to increase access to high quality primary mental health care for under-served groups, we created a model of care with three discrete elements: community engagement, primary care training and tailored wellbeing interventions. We have previously demonstrated the individual impact of each element of the model. Here we assess the effectiveness of the combined model in increasing access to and improving the quality of primary mental health care. We test the assumptions that access to the wellbeing interventions is increased by the presence of community engagement and primary care training; and that quality of primary mental health care is increased by the presence of community engagement and the wellbeing interventions., Methods: We implemented the model in four under-served localities in North-West England, focusing on older people and minority ethnic populations. Using a quasi-experimental design with no-intervention comparators, we gathered a combination of quantitative and qualitative information. Quantitative information, including referral and recruitment rates for the wellbeing interventions, and practice referrals to mental health services, was analysed descriptively. Qualitative information derived from interview and focus group responses to topic guides from more than 110 participants. Framework analysis was used to generate findings from the qualitative data., Results: Access to the wellbeing interventions was associated with the presence of the community engagement and the primary care training elements. Referrals to the wellbeing interventions were associated with community engagement, while recruitment was associated with primary care training. Qualitative data suggested that the mechanisms underlying these associations were increased awareness and sense of agency. The quality of primary mental health care was enhanced by information gained from our community mapping activities, and by the offer of access to the wellbeing interventions. There were variable benefits from health practitioner participation in community consultative groups. We also found that participation in the wellbeing interventions led to increased community engagement., Conclusions: We explored the interactions between elements of a multilevel intervention and identified important associations and underlying mechanisms. Further research is needed to test the generalisability of the model., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials, reference ISRCTN68572159 . Registered 25 February 2013.

Background: Collaborative care is effective for depression management in the USA. There is little UK evidence on its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness., Objective: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care compared with usual care in the management of patients with moderate to severe depression., Design: Cluster randomised controlled trial., Setting: UK primary care practices (n = 51) in three UK primary care districts., Participants: A total of 581 adults aged ≥ 18 years in general practice with a current International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition depressive episode, excluding acutely suicidal people, those with psychosis, bipolar disorder or low mood associated with bereavement, those whose primary presentation was substance abuse and those receiving psychological treatment., Interventions: Collaborative care: 14 weeks of 6-12 telephone contacts by care managers; mental health specialist supervision, including depression education, medication management, behavioural activation, relapse prevention and primary care liaison. Usual care was general practitioner standard practice., Main Outcome Measures: Blinded researchers collected depression [Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9)], anxiety (General Anxiety Disorder-7) and quality of life (European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions three-level version), Short Form questionnaire-36 items) outcomes at 4, 12 and 36 months, satisfaction (Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8) outcomes at 4 months and treatment and service use costs at 12 months., Results: In total, 276 and 305 participants were randomised to collaborative care and usual care respectively. Collaborative care participants had a mean depression score that was 1.33 PHQ-9 points lower [n = 230; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 2.31; p = 0.009] than that of participants in usual care at 4 months and 1.36 PHQ-9 points lower (n = 275; 95% CI 0.07 to 2.64; p = 0.04) at 12 months after adjustment for baseline depression (effect size 0.28, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.52; odds ratio for recovery 1.88, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.75; number needed to treat 6.5). Quality of mental health but not physical health was significantly better for collaborative care at 4 months but not at 12 months. There was no difference for anxiety. Participants receiving collaborative care were significantly more satisfied with treatment. Differences between groups had disappeared at 36 months. Collaborative care had a mean cost of £272.50 per participant with similar health and social care service use between collaborative care and usual care. Collaborative care offered a mean incremental gain of 0.02 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.06) quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over 12 months at a mean incremental cost of £270.72 (95% CI -£202.98 to £886.04) and had an estimated mean cost per QALY of £14,248, which is below current UK willingness-to-pay thresholds. Sensitivity analyses including informal care costs indicated that collaborative care is expected to be less costly and more effective. The amount of participant behavioural activation was the only effect mediator., Conclusions: Collaborative care improves depression up to 12 months after initiation of the intervention, is preferred by patients over usual care, offers health gains at a relatively low cost, is cost-effective compared with usual care and is mediated by patient activation. Supervision was by expert clinicians and of short duration and more intensive therapy may have improved outcomes. In addition, one participant requiring inpatient treatment incurred very significant costs and substantially inflated our cost per QALY estimate. Future work should test enhanced intervention content not collaborative care per se., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN32829227., Funding: This project was funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) (G0701013) and managed by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) on behalf of the MRC-NIHR partnership.

Objectives: Little is known about service utilisation by patients with severe mental illness (SMI) in UK primary care. We examined their consultation rate patterns and whether they were impacted by the introduction of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), in 2004., Design: Retrospective cohort study using individual patient data collected from 2000 to 2012., Setting: 627 general practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a large UK primary care database., Participants: SMI cases (346,551) matched to 5 individuals without SMI (1,732,755) on age, gender and general practice., Outcome Measures: Consultation rates were calculated for both groups, across 3 types: face-to-face (primary outcome), telephone and other (not only consultations but including administrative tasks). Poisson regression analyses were used to identify predictors of consultation rates and calculate adjusted consultation rates. Interrupted time-series analysis was used to quantify the effect of the QOF., Results: Over the study period, face-to-face consultations in primary care remained relatively stable in the matched control group (between 4.5 and 4.9 per annum) but increased for people with SMI (8.8-10.9). Women and older patients consulted more frequently in the SMI and the matched control groups, across all 3 consultation types. Following the introduction of the QOF, there was an increase in the annual trend of face-to-face consultation for people with SMI (average increase of 0.19 consultations per patient per year, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.36), which was not observed for the control group (estimates across groups statistically different, p=0.022)., Conclusions: The introduction of the QOF was associated with increases in the frequency of monitoring and in the average number of reported comorbidities for patients with SMI. This suggests that the QOF scheme successfully incentivised practices to improve their monitoring of the mental and physical health of this group of patients., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Objectives: Little is known about the prevalence of comorbidity rates in people with severe mental illness (SMI) in UK primary care. We calculated the prevalence of SMI by UK country, English region and deprivation quintile, antipsychotic and antidepressant medication prescription rates for people with SMI, and prevalence rates of common comorbidities in people with SMI compared with people without SMI., Design: Retrospective cohort study from 2000 to 2012., Setting: 627 general practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a UK primary care database., Participants: Each identified case (346,551) was matched for age, sex and general practice with 5 randomly selected control cases (1,732,755) with no diagnosis of SMI in each yearly time point., Outcome Measures: Prevalence rates were calculated for 16 conditions., Results: SMI rates were highest in Scotland and in more deprived areas. Rates increased in England, Wales and Northern Ireland over time, with the largest increase in Northern Ireland (0.48% in 2000/2001 to 0.69% in 2011/2012). Annual prevalence rates of all conditions were higher in people with SMI compared with those without SMI. The discrepancy between the prevalence of those with and without SMI increased over time for most conditions. A greater increase in the mean number of additional conditions was observed in the SMI population over the study period (0.6 in 2000/2001 to 1.0 in 2011/2012) compared with those without SMI (0.5 in 2000/2001 to 0.6 in 2011/2012). For both groups, most conditions were more prevalent in more deprived areas, whereas for the SMI group conditions such as hypothyroidism, chronic kidney disease and cancer were more prevalent in more affluent areas., Conclusions: Our findings highlight the health inequalities faced by people with SMI. The provision of appropriate timely health prevention, promotion and monitoring activities to reduce these health inequalities are needed, especially in deprived areas., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Background: Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) has been developed as an efficient form of therapy delivery with the potential to enhance access to psychological care. Independent research is needed which examines both the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cCBT over the short and longer term., Objectives: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cCBT as an adjunct to usual general practitioner (GP) care against usual GP care alone, for a free-to-use cCBT program (MoodGYM; National Institute for Mental Health Research, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia) and a commercial pay-to-use cCBT program (Beating the Blues(®); Ultrasis, London, UK) for adults with depression, and to determine the acceptability of cCBT and the experiences of users., Design: A pragmatic, multicentre, three-armed, parallel, randomised controlled trial (RCT) with concurrent economic and qualitative evaluations. Simple randomisation was used. Participants and researchers were not blind to treatment allocation., Setting: Primary care in England., Participants: Adults with depression who scored ≥ 10 on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9)., Interventions: Participants who were randomised to either of the two intervention groups received cCBT (Beating the Blues or MoodGYM) in addition to usual GP care. Participants who were randomised to the control group were offered usual GP care., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was depression at 4 months (PHQ-9). Secondary outcomes were depression at 12 and 24 months; measures of mental health and health-related quality of life at 4, 12 and 24 months; treatment preference; and the acceptability of cCBT and experiences of users., Results: Clinical effectiveness: 210 patients were randomised to Beating the Blues, 242 patients were randomised to MoodGYM and 239 patients were randomised to usual GP care (total 691). There was no difference in the primary outcome (depression measured at 4 months) either between Beating the Blues and usual GP care [odds ratio (OR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 1.88] or between MoodGYM and usual GP care (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.56). There was no overall difference across all time points for either intervention compared with usual GP care in a mixed model (Beating the Blues versus usual GP care, p = 0.96; and MoodGYM versus usual GP care, p = 0.11). However, a small but statistically significant difference between MoodGYM and usual GP care at 12 months was found (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.93). Free-to-use cCBT (MoodGYM) was not inferior to pay-to-use cCBT (Beating the Blues) (OR 0.91, 90% CI 0.62 to 1.34; p = 0.69). There were no consistent benefits of either intervention when secondary outcomes were examined. There were no serious adverse events thought likely to be related to the trial intervention. Despite the provision of regular technical telephone support, there was low uptake of the cCBT programs. Cost-effectiveness: cost-effectiveness analyses suggest that neither Beating the Blues nor MoodGYM appeared cost-effective compared with usual GP care alone. Qualitative evaluation: participants were often demotivated to access the computer programs, by reason of depression. Some expressed the view that a greater level of therapeutic input would be needed to promote engagement., Conclusions: The benefits that have previously been observed in developer-led trials were not found in this large pragmatic RCT. The benefits of cCBT when added to routine primary care were minimal, and uptake of this mode of therapy was relatively low. There remains a clinical and economic need for effective low-intensity psychological treatments for depression with improved patient engagement., Trial Registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN91947481., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Background: Despite the availability of effective evidence-based treatments for depression and anxiety, many 'harder-to-reach' social and patient groups experience difficulties accessing treatment. We developed a complex intervention, the AMP (Improving Access to Mental Health in Primary Care) programme, which combined community engagement (CE), tailored (individual and group) psychosocial interventions and primary care involvement., Objectives: To develop and evaluate a model for community engagement component of the complex intervention. This paper focuses on the development of relationships between stakeholders, their engagement with the issue of access to mental health and with the programme through the CE model., Design: Our evaluation draws on process data, qualitative interviews and focus groups, brought together through framework analysis to evaluate the issues and challenges encountered., Setting & Participants: A case study of the South Asian community project carried out in Longsight in Greater Manchester, United Kingdom., Key Findings: Complex problems require multiple local stakeholders to work in concert. Assets based approaches implicitly make demands on scarce time and resources. Community development approaches have many benefits, but perceptions of open-ended investment are a barrier. The time-limited nature of a CE intervention provides an impetus to 'do it now', allowing stakeholders to negotiate their investment over time and accommodating their wider commitments. Both tangible outcomes and recognition of process benefits were vital in maintaining involvement., Conclusions: CE interventions can play a key role in improving accessibility and acceptability by engaging patients, the public and practitioners in research and in the local service ecology., (© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aims and method To explore the portrayal of homicide-suicide in newspaper articles, particularly how mental illness was reported. We carried out a qualitative study in England and Wales (2006-2008). Data from newspaper articles obtained via the LexisNexis database were used to examine a consecutive series of 60 cases. Results A fascination with extreme violence, vulnerable victims and having someone to blame made homicide-suicides newsworthy. Some offenders were portrayed in a stereotypical manner and pejorative language was used to describe mental illness. The findings showed evidence of inaccurate and speculative reference to mental disorder in newspaper reports. Clinical implications The media should avoid speculation on people's mental state. Accurate reporting is essential to reduce stigma of mental illness, which may in turn encourage people to seek help if they experience similar emotional distress.

Study Question: How effective is supported computerised cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) as an adjunct to usual primary care for adults with depression?, Methods: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, three arm, parallel randomised controlled trial with simple randomisation. Treatment allocation was not blinded. Participants were adults with symptoms of depression (score ≥ 10 on nine item patient health questionnaire, PHQ-9) who were randomised to receive a commercially produced cCBT programme ("Beating the Blues") or a free to use cCBT programme (MoodGYM) in addition to usual GP care. Participants were supported and encouraged to complete the programme via weekly telephone calls. Control participants were offered usual GP care, with no constraints on the range of treatments that could be accessed. The primary outcome was severity of depression assessed with the PHQ-9 at four months. Secondary outcomes included health related quality of life (measured by SF-36) and psychological wellbeing (measured by CORE-OM) at four, 12, and 24 months and depression at 12 and 24 months., Study Answer and Limitations: Participants offered commercial or free to use cCBT experienced no additional improvement in depression compared with usual GP care at four months (odds ratio 1.19 (95% confidence interval 0.75 to 1.88) for Beating the Blues v usual GP care; 0.98 (0.62 to 1.56) for MoodGYM v usual GP care). There was no evidence of an overall difference between either programme compared with usual GP care (0.99 (0.57 to 1.70) and 0.68 (0.42 to 1.10), respectively) at any time point. Commercially provided cCBT conferred no additional benefit over free to use cCBT or usual GP care at any follow-up point. Uptake and use of cCBT was low, despite regular telephone support. Nearly a quarter of participants (24%) had dropped out by four months. The study did not have enough power to detect small differences so these cannot be ruled out. Findings cannot be generalised to cCBT offered with a much higher level of guidance and support., What This Study Adds: Supported cCBT does not substantially improve depression outcomes compared with usual GP care alone. In this study, neither a commercially available nor free to use computerised CBT intervention was superior to usual GP care., Funding, Competing Interests, Data Sharing: Commissioned and funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme (project No 06/43/05). The authors have no competing interests. Requests for patient level data will be considered by the REEACT trial management groupTrial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN91947481., (© Gilbody et al 2015.)

Background: In the United Kingdom, ethnic minority group's particularly British South Asian women have higher rates of depression than their white counterparts. Despite this they remain under represented in mental health trials. Whilst the US legislation mandates the inclusion of ethnic minorities into research, there are no similar initiatives in the UK. Barriers in recruiting these hard to reach ethnic groups are cited as major reasons behind this under representation. Once these barriers are encountered it becomes a challenge for the researchers to overcome them. As there is paucity of research in this specific area through this paper we want to share our strategies in recruiting British South Asians thus encouraging other researchers to consider ethnic minority inclusion into research., Methods: Our published systematic review on the barriers to recruitment of ethnic minority participants into mental health research developed a typology of thirty three ethnic recruitment barriers described under five themes. We aimed to find strategies to overcome these barriers from five depression trials for British South Asians conducted by our research group. Firstly we extracted data on recruitment strategies from the published papers. Later researchers involved in these five trials formed a working group to add to these extracted strategies. Finally these strategies were matched to the individual barriers described in the typology., Results: Multiple recruitment strategies were described by the researchers. These strategies were matched to all but two recruitment barriers related to psychopathology/substance misuse by the participants and paucity of healthcare related resources. Multiple strategies were found to be effective against each barrier and appropriate ones could be selected by the researchers after considering available resources at hand., Conclusions: Findings from this paper have implications for the design of recruitment strategies for hard to recruit ethnic minority groups to health care research. There is need for wider training and support of researchers to give them the skills to recruit these ethnic groups. Further development and evaluation of these strategies will lead to increased recruitment accruals., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To test the effectiveness of an integrated collaborative care model for people with depression and long term physical conditions., Design: Cluster randomised controlled trial., Setting: 36 general practices in the north west of England., Participants: 387 patients with a record of diabetes or heart disease, or both, who had depressive symptoms (≥ 10 on patient health questionaire-9 (PHQ-9)) for at least two weeks. Mean age was 58.5 (SD 11.7). Participants reported a mean of 6.2 (SD 3.0) long term conditions other than diabetes or heart disease; 240 (62%) were men; 360 (90%) completed the trial., Interventions: Collaborative care included patient preference for behavioural activation, cognitive restructuring, graded exposure, and/or lifestyle advice, management of drug treatment, and prevention of relapse. Up to eight sessions of psychological treatment were delivered by specially trained psychological wellbeing practitioners employed by Improving Access to Psychological Therapy services in the English National Health Service; integration of care was enhanced by two treatment sessions delivered jointly with the practice nurse. Usual care was standard clinical practice provided by general practitioners and practice nurses., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was reduction in symptoms of depression on the self reported symptom checklist-13 depression scale (SCL-D13) at four months after baseline assessment. Secondary outcomes included anxiety symptoms (generalised anxiety disorder 7), self management (health education impact questionnaire), disability (Sheehan disability scale), and global quality of life (WHOQOL-BREF)., Results: 19 general practices were randomised to collaborative care and 20 to usual care; three practices withdrew from the trial before patients were recruited. 191 patients were recruited from practices allocated to collaborative care, and 196 from practices allocated to usual care. After adjustment for baseline depression score, mean depressive scores were 0.23 SCL-D13 points lower (95% confidence interval -0.41 to -0.05) in the collaborative care arm, equal to an adjusted standardised effect size of 0.30. Patients in the intervention arm also reported being better self managers, rated their care as more patient centred, and were more satisfied with their care. There were no significant differences between groups in quality of life, disease specific quality of life, self efficacy, disability, and social support., Conclusions: Collaborative care that incorporates brief low intensity psychological therapy delivered in partnership with practice nurses in primary care can reduce depression and improve self management of chronic disease in people with mental and physical multimorbidity. The size of the treatment effects were modest and were less than the prespecified effect but were achieved in a trial run in routine settings with a deprived population with high levels of mental and physical multimorbidity., Trial Registration: ISRCTN80309252., (© Coventry et al 2015.)

Background: In the general population the prevalence of bipolar and schizophrenia is 0.24% and 1.4% respectively. People with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have a significantly reduced life expectancy, increased rates of unemployment and a fear of stigma leading to reduced self-confidence. A core outcome set is a standardised collection of items that should be reported in all controlled trials within a research area. There are currently no core outcome sets available for use in effectiveness trials involving bipolar or schizophrenia service users managed in a community setting., Methods: A three-step approach is to be used to concurrently develop two core outcome sets, one for bipolar and one for schizophrenia. First, a comprehensive list of outcomes will be compiled through qualitative research and systematic searching of trial databases. Focus groups and one-to-one interviews will be completed with service users, carers and healthcare professionals. Second, a Delphi study will be used to reduce the lists to a core set. The three-round Delphi study will ask service users to score the outcome list for relevance. In round two stakeholders will only see the results of their group, while in round three stakeholders will see the results of all stakeholder group by stakeholder group. Third, a consensus meeting with stakeholders will be used to confirm outcomes to be included in the core set. Following the development of the core set a systematic literature review of existing measures will allow recommendations for how the core outcomes should be measured and a stated preference survey will explore the strength of people's preferences and estimate weights for the outcomes that comprise the core set., Discussion: A core outcome set represents the minimum measurement requirement for a research area. We aim to develop core outcome sets for use in research involving service users with schizophrenia or bipolar managed in a community setting. This will inform the wider PARTNERS2 study aims and objectives of developing an innovative primary care-based model of collaborative care for people with a diagnosis of bipolar or schizophrenia.

Background: Collaborative care is a complex intervention based on chronic disease management models and is effective in the management of depression. However, there is still uncertainty about which components of collaborative care are effective. We used meta-regression to identify factors in collaborative care associated with improvement in patient outcomes (depressive symptoms) and the process of care (use of anti-depressant medication)., Methods and Findings: Systematic review with meta-regression. The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group trials registers were searched from inception to 9th February 2012. An update was run in the CENTRAL trials database on 29th December 2013. Inclusion criteria were: randomised controlled trials of collaborative care for adults ≥18 years with a primary diagnosis of depression or mixed anxiety and depressive disorder. Random effects meta-regression was used to estimate regression coefficients with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between study level covariates and depressive symptoms and relative risk (95% CI) and anti-depressant use. The association between anti-depressant use and improvement in depression was also explored. Seventy four trials were identified (85 comparisons, across 21,345 participants). Collaborative care that included psychological interventions predicted improvement in depression (β coefficient -0.11, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.01, p = 0.03). Systematic identification of patients (relative risk 1.43, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.81, p = 0.004) and the presence of a chronic physical condition (relative risk 1.32, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.65, p = 0.02) predicted use of anti-depressant medication., Conclusion: Trials of collaborative care that included psychological treatment, with or without anti-depressant medication, appeared to improve depression more than those without psychological treatment. Trials that used systematic methods to identify patients with depression and also trials that included patients with a chronic physical condition reported improved use of anti-depressant medication. However, these findings are limited by the observational nature of meta-regression, incomplete data reporting, and the use of study aggregates.

Background: Collaborative care is an effective treatment for the management of depression but evidence on its cost-effectiveness in the UK is lacking., Aims: To assess the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care in a UK primary care setting., Methods: An economic evaluation alongside a multi-centre cluster randomised controlled trial comparing collaborative care with usual primary care for adults with depression (n = 581). Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated over a 12-month follow-up, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services (i.e. Third Party Payer). Sensitivity analyses are reported, and uncertainty is presented using the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) and the cost-effectiveness plane., Results: The collaborative care intervention had a mean cost of £272.50 per participant. Health and social care service use, excluding collaborative care, indicated a similar profile of resource use between collaborative care and usual care participants. Collaborative care offered a mean incremental gain of 0.02 (95% CI: -0.02, 0.06) quality-adjusted life-years over 12 months, at a mean incremental cost of £270.72 (95% CI: -202.98, 886.04), and resulted in an estimated mean cost per QALY of £14,248. Where costs associated with informal care are considered in sensitivity analyses collaborative care is expected to be less costly and more effective, thereby dominating treatment as usual., Conclusion: Collaborative care offers health gains at a relatively low cost, and is cost-effective compared with usual care against a decision-maker willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Results here support the commissioning of collaborative care in a UK primary care setting.

Background: Psychological therapy is effective for symptoms of mental distress, but many groups with high levels of mental distress face significant barriers in terms of access to care, as current interventions may not be sensitive to their needs or their understanding of mental health. There is a need to develop forms of psychological therapy that are acceptable to these groups, feasible to deliver in routine settings, and clinically and cost effective., Methods: We developed a culturally sensitive wellbeing intervention with individual, group and sign-posting elements, and tested its feasibility and acceptability for patients from ethnic minorities and older people in an exploratory randomised trial., Results: We recruited 57 patients (57% of our target) from 4 disadvantaged localities in the NW of England. The results of the exploratory trial suggest that the group receiving the wellbeing interventions improved compared to the group receiving usual care. For elders, the largest effects were on CORE-OM and PHQ-9. For ethnic minority patients, the largest effect was on PHQ-9. Qualitative data suggested that patients found the intervention acceptable, both in terms of content and delivery., Conclusions: This exploratory trial provides some evidence of the efficacy and acceptability of a wellbeing intervention for older and ethnic minority groups experiencing anxiety and depression, although challenges in recruitment and engagement remain. Evidence from our exploratory study of wellbeing interventions should inform new substantive trial designs., Trial Registration: Current controlled trials ISRCTN68572159.

Policies and guidelines from across the international community are attempting to galvanise action to address the unacceptably high morbidity and mortality rates amongst people with a serious mental illness (SMI). Primary care has a pivotal role to play in translating policy into evidence based practice in conjunction with other providers of health care services. This paper explores the current and potential of role of primary care providers in delivering health care to people with SMI. A review of research in the following key areas of primary health care provision is provided: access, screening and preventative care, routine monitoring and follow-up, diagnosis and delivery of treatments in accordance with guidelines and delivery of interventions. There is undoubtedly a need for further research to establish the effectiveness of primary care interventions and the organisation of services. Equally, understanding how primary care services can deliver high quality care and promoting effective working at the interface with other services must be priorities.

Background: Shared decision making represents a clinical consultation model where both clinician and service user are conceptualised as experts; information is shared bilaterally and joint treatment decisions are reached. Little previous research has been conducted to assess experience of this model in psychiatric practice. The current project therefore sought to explore the attitudes and experiences of consultant psychiatrists relating to shared decision making in the prescribing of antipsychotic medications., Methods: A qualitative research design allowed the experiences and beliefs of participants in relation to shared decision making to be elicited. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants from a range of clinical backgrounds and with varying length of clinical experience. A semi-structured interview schedule was utilised and was adapted in subsequent interviews to reflect emergent themes.Data analysis was completed in parallel with interviews in order to guide interview topics and to inform recruitment. A directed analysis method was utilised for interview analysis with themes identified being fitted to a framework identified from the research literature as applicable to the practice of shared decision making. Examples of themes contradictory to, or not adequately explained by, the framework were sought., Results: A total of 26 consultant psychiatrists were interviewed. Participants expressed support for the shared decision making model, but also acknowledged that it was necessary to be flexible as the clinical situation dictated. A number of potential barriers to the process were perceived however: The commonest barrier was the clinician's beliefs regarding the service users' insight into their mental disorder, presented in some cases as an absolute barrier to shared decision making. In addition factors external to the clinician - service user relationship were identified as impacting on the decision making process, including; environmental factors, financial constraints as well as societal perceptions of mental disorder in general and antipsychotic medication in particular., Conclusions: This project has allowed identification of potential barriers to shared decision making in psychiatric practice. Further work is necessary to observe the decision making process in clinical practice and also to identify means in which the identified barriers, in particular 'lack of insight', may be more effectively managed.

Background: The purpose of the study was to improve the quality of primary mental healthcare in underserved communities through involvement with the wider primary care team members and local community agencies., Methods: We developed training intended for all GP practice staff which included elements of knowledge transfer, systems review and active linking. Seven GP Practices in four localities (North West England, UK) took part in the training. Qualitative evaluation was conducted using thirteen semi-structured interviews and two focus groups in six of the participating practices; analysis used principles of Framework Analysis., Results: Staff who had engaged with the training programme reported increased awareness, recognition and respect for the needs of patients from under-served communities. We received reports of changes in style and content of interactions, particularly amongst receptionists, and evidence of system change. In addition, the training program increased awareness of - and encouraged signposting to - community agencies within the practice locality., Conclusions: This study demonstrates how engaging with practices and delivering training in a changing health care system might best be attempted. The importance of engaging with community agencies is clear, as is the use of the AMP model as a template for further research.

Mental health problems are common in primary health care, particularly anxiety and depression. This study aims to estimate the prevalence of common mental disorders and their associations with socio-demographic characteristics in primary care in Brazil (Family Health Strategy). It involved a multicenter cross-sectional study with patients from Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Fortaleza (Ceará State) and Porto Alegre (Rio Grande do Sul State), assessed using the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HAD). The rate of mental disorders in patients from Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Fortaleza and Porto Alegre were found to be, respectively, 51.9%, 53.3%, 64.3% and 57.7% with significant differences between Porto Alegre and Fortaleza compared to Rio de Janeiro after adjusting for confounders. Prevalence proportions of mental problems were especially common for females, the unemployed, those with less education and those with lower incomes. In the context of the Brazilian government's moves towards developing primary health care and reorganizing mental health policies it is relevant to consider common mental disorders as a priority alongside other chronic health conditions.

Background: Collaborative care for severe mental illness (SMI) is a community-based intervention, which typically consists of a number of components. The intervention aims to improve the physical and/or mental health care of individuals with SMI., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of collaborative care approaches in comparison with standard care for people with SMI who are living in the community. The primary outcome of interest was psychiatric admissions., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Specialised register in April 2011. The register is compiled from systematic searches of major databases, handsearches of relevant journals and conference proceedings. We also contacted 51 experts in the field of SMI and collaborative care., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) described as collaborative care by the trialists comparing any form of collaborative care with 'standard care' for adults (18+ years) living in the community with a diagnosis of SMI, defined as schizophrenia or other types of schizophrenia-like psychosis (e.g. schizophreniform and schizoaffective disorders), bipolar affective disorder or other types of psychosis., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors worked independently to extract and quality assess data. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and we calculated mean differences (MD) with 95% CIs for continuous data. Risk of bias was assessed., Main Results: We included one RCT (306 participants; US veterans with bipolar disorder I or II) in this review. We did not find any trials meeting our inclusion criteria that included people with schizophrenia. The trial provided data for one comparison: collaborative care versus standard care. All results are 'low or very low quality evidence'.Data indicated that collaborative care reduced psychiatric admissions at year two in comparison to standard care (n = 306, 1 RCT, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.99).The sensitivity analysis showed that the proportion of participants psychiatrically hospitalised was lower in the intervention group than the standard care group in year three: 28% compared to 38% (n = 330, 1 RCT, RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.99).In comparison to the standard care group, collaborative care significantly improved the Mental Health Component (MHC) of quality of life at the three-year follow-up, (n = 306, 1 RCT, MD 3.50, 95% CI 1.80 to 5.20). The Physical Health Component (PHC) of the quality of life measure at the three-year follow-up did not differ significantly between groups (n = 306, 1 RCT, MD 0.50, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.91).Direct intervention (all-treatment) costs of collaborative care at the three-year follow-up did not differ significantly from standard care (n = 306, 1 RCT, MD -$2981.00, 95% CI $16934.93 to $10972.93). The proportion of participants leaving the study early did not differ significantly between groups (n = 306, 1 RCT, RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.77 to 3.79). There is no trial-based information regarding the effect of collaborative care for people with schizophrenia.No statistically significant differences were found between groups for number of deaths by suicide at three years (n = 330, 1 RCT, RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.32), or the number of participants that died from all other causes at three years (n = 330, 1 RCT, RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.66)., Authors' Conclusions: The review did not identify any studies relevant to care of people with schizophrenia and hence there is no evidence available to determine if collaborative care is effective for people suffering from schizophrenia or schizophreniform disorders. There was however one trial at high risk of bias that suggests that collaborative care for US veterans with bipolar disorder may reduce psychiatric admissions at two years and improves quality of life (mental health component) at three years, however, on its own it is not sufficient for us to make any recommendations regarding its effectiveness. More large, well designed, conducted and reported trials are required before any clinical or policy making decisions can be made.

Trial Design: This was a multicenter cluster-randomized controlled trial., Participants: A total of 227 patients ≥18 years old with a new onset of depressive symptoms who screened positive on the first two items of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) were recruited by primary care physicians (PCPs) of eight health districts of three Italian regions from September 2009 to June 2011., Intervention: PCPs of the intervention group received a specific collaborative care program including 2 days of intensive training, implementation of a stepped care protocol, depression management toolkit and scheduled meetings with a dedicated consultant psychiatrist., Objective: The objective was to determine whether a collaborative care program for depression management in primary care leads to higher remission rate than usual PCP care., Outcomes: Outcome was clinical remission as expressed on PHQ-9 <5 at 3 months., Randomization: An independent researcher used computer-generated randomization to assign involved primary care groups to the two alternative arms., Blinding: PCPs and research personnel were not blinded., Results: The 223 PCPs enrolled recruited 227 patients (128 in collaborative care arm, 99 in the usual care arm). At 3 months (n=210), the proportion of patients who achieved remission was higher, though the difference was not statistically significant, in the collaborative care group. The effect size was of 0.11. When considering only patients with minor/major depression, collaborative care appeared to be more effective than usual care (P=.015)., Conclusions: The present intervention for managing depression in primary care, designed to be applicable to the Italian context, appears to be effective and feasible., (© 2013.)

Objective: To compare the clinical effectiveness of collaborative care with usual care in the management of patients with moderate to severe depression., Design: Cluster randomised controlled trial., Setting: 51 primary care practices in three primary care districts in the United Kingdom., Participants: 581 adults aged 18 years and older who met ICD-10 (international classification of diseases, 10th revision) criteria for a depressive episode on the revised Clinical Interview Schedule. We excluded acutely suicidal patients and those with psychosis, or with type I or type II bipolar disorder; patients whose low mood was associated with bereavement or whose primary presenting problem was alcohol or drug abuse; and patients receiving psychological treatment for their depression by specialist mental health services. We identified potentially eligible participants by searching computerised case records in general practices for patients with depression., Interventions: Collaborative care, including depression education, drug management, behavioural activation, relapse prevention, and primary care liaison, was delivered by care managers. Collaborative care involved six to 12 contacts with participants over 14 weeks, supervised by mental health specialists. Usual care was family doctors' standard clinical practice., Main Outcome Measures: Depression symptoms (patient health questionnaire 9; PHQ-9), anxiety (generalised anxiety disorder 7; GAD-7), and quality of life (short form 36 questionnaire; SF-36) at four and 12 months; satisfaction with service quality (client satisfaction questionnaire; CSQ-8) at four months., Results: 276 participants were allocated to collaborative care and 305 allocated to usual care. At four months, mean depression score was 11.1 (standard deviation 7.3) for the collaborative care group and 12.7 (6.8) for the usual care group. After adjustment for baseline depression, mean depression score was 1.33 PHQ-9 points lower (95% confidence interval 0.35 to 2.31, P=0.009) in participants receiving collaborative care than in those receiving usual care at four months, and 1.36 points lower (0.07 to 2.64, P=0.04) at 12 months. Quality of mental health but not physical health was significantly better for collaborative care than for usual care at four months, but not 12 months. Anxiety did not differ between groups. Participants receiving collaborative care were significantly more satisfied with treatment than those receiving usual care. The number needed to treat for one patient to drop below the accepted diagnostic threshold for depression on the PHQ-9 was 8.4 immediately after treatment, and 6.5 at 12 months., Conclusions: Collaborative care has persistent positive effects up to 12 months after initiation of the intervention and is preferred by patients over usual care., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN32829227.

Objectives: To consider what the barriers are to effective depression education; to understand what attitudes, knowledge, and skills doctors need to acquire, and finally to examine what we currently know about effective ways of training family physicians (FPs) about depression., Methods: A narrative review of the published literature compiled from searching reviews and original articles was conducted using the following key words: education, training, attitudes, depression, and primary care. Further relevant articles were identified from reference lists., Results: The identified barriers are FPs' attitudes and confidence toward recognizing and managing depression, the way in which they conceptualize depression, and the difficulties they face in implementing change in the systems in which they work. We, as educators, can identify what FPs need to know, and this should include novel ways of organizing care. However, of key importance is the need to address how more effective interventions may be provided, recognizing that FPs may be starting from many different points on 3 differing continua of attitude, skills, and knowledge in relation to depression., Conclusions: We have to not only ensure that the content of what we teach is perceived as relevant to primary care but also review exactly how we go about providing it, using methods that will engage and stimulate doctors at differing stages of readiness to acquire new attitudes, skills, and knowledge about depression. However, we still need to find better ways of helping FPs to recognize and acknowledge their educational needs. Further research is also required to thoroughly evaluate these novel approaches to tailoring educational interventions.

Background: The COINCIDE trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a collaborative care intervention for depression in people with diabetes and/or coronary heart disease attending English general practices., Design: This update details changes to the cluster and patient recruitment strategy for the COINCIDE study. The original protocol was published in Trials (http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/pdf/1745-6215-13-139.pdf). Modifications were made to the recruitment targets in response to lower-than-expected patient recruitment at the first ten general practices recruited into the study. In order to boost patient numbers and retain statistical power, the number of general practices recruited was increased from 30 to 36. Follow-up period was shortened from 6 months to 4 months to ensure that patients recruited to the trial could be followed up by the end of the study., Results: Patient recruitment began on the 01/05/2012 and is planned to be completed by the 30/04/2013. Recruitment for general practices was completed on 31/10/2012, by which time the target of 36 practices had been recruited. The main trial results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal., Conclusion: The data from the trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for depression in people with diabetes and/or coronary heart disease., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN80309252.

Objectives: The aim of this research was to investigate whether a training intervention to enhance collaboration between mental health and primary care professionals improved the detection and management of mental health problems in primary health care in four large cities in Brazil. The training intervention was a multifaceted program over 96 h focused on development of a shared care model., Method: A quasiexperimental study design was undertaken with assessment of performance by nurse and general practitioners (GPs) pre- and postintervention. Rates of recognition of mental health disorders (compared with the General Health Questionnaire) were the primary outcome, while self-reports of patient-centered care, psychosocial interventions and referral were the secondary outcomes., Results: Six to 8 months postintervention, no changes were observed in terms of rate of recognition across the entire sample. Nurses significantly increased their recognition rates (from 23% to 39%, P=.05), while GPs demonstrated a significant decrease (from 42% to 30%, P=.04). There were significant increases in reports of patient-centered care, but no changes in other secondary outcomes., Conclusions: Training professionals in a shared care model was not associated with consistent improvements in the recognition or management of mental health problems. Although instabilities in the local context may have contributed to the lack of effects, wider changes in the system of care may be required to augment training and encourage reliable changes in behavior, and more specific educating models are necessary., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: General practice receptionists fulfil an essential role in UK primary care, shaping patient access to health professionals. They are often portrayed as powerful 'gatekeepers'. Existing literature and management initiatives advocate more training to improve their performance and, consequently, the patient experience., Aim: To explore the complexity of the role of general practice receptionists by considering the wider practice context in which they work., Design and Setting: Ethnographic observation in seven urban general practices in the north-west of England., Method: Seven researchers conducted 200 hours of ethnographic observation, predominantly in the reception areas of each practice. Forty-five receptionists were involved in the study and were asked about their work as they carried out their activities. Observational notes were taken. Analysis involved ascribing codes to incidents considered relevant to the role and organising these into related clusters., Results: Receptionists were faced with the difficult task of prioritising patients, despite having little time, information, and training. They felt responsible for protecting those patients who were most vulnerable, however this was sometimes made difficult by protocols set by the GPs and by patients trying to 'play' the system., Conclusion: Framing the receptionist-patient encounter as one between the 'powerful' and the 'vulnerable' gets in the way of fully understanding the complex tasks receptionists perform and the contradictions that are inherent in their role. Calls for more training, without reflective attention to practice dynamics, risk failing to address systemic problems, portraying them instead as individual failings.