↓ Skip to main content

Interventions to Increase Depression Treatment Initiation in Primary Care Patients: a Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
Title
Interventions to Increase Depression Treatment Initiation in Primary Care Patients: a Systematic Review
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, August 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11606-018-4554-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nathalie Moise, Louise Falzon, Megan Obi, Siqin Ye, Sapana Patel, Christopher Gonzalez, Kelsey Bryant, Ian M. Kronish

Abstract

Nearly 50% of depressed primary care patients referred to mental health services do not initiate mental health treatment. The most promising interventions for increasing depression treatment initiation in primary care settings remain unclear. We performed a systematic search of publicly available databases from inception through August 2017 to identify interventions designed to increase depression treatment initiation. Two authors independently selected, extracted data, and rated risk of bias from included studies. Eligible studies used a randomized or pre-post design and assessed depression treatment initiation (i.e., ≥ 1 mental health visit or antidepressant fill) among adults, the majority of whom met criteria for depression. Interventions were classified as simple or complex and sub-classified into intervention strategies that were graded for strength of evidence. Of 9516 articles identified, we included 14 unique studies representing 16 (4 simple and 12 complex) interventions and 8 treatment initiation strategies. We found low to moderate strength of evidence for collaborative/integrated care (3 studies), treatment preference matching (2 studies), and case management (2 studies) strategies. However, there was insufficient evidence to determine the benefit of cultural tailoring (2 studies), motivation (alone, with reminders or with cultural tailoring (5 studies)), education (1 study), and shared decision-making strategies (1 study). Overall, we found moderate strength of evidence for complex interventions (8 of 12 complex interventions demonstrated statistically significant effects on treatment initiation). Collaborative/integrated care, preference treatment matching, and case management strategies had the best evidence for improving depression treatment initiation, but none of the strategies had high strength of evidence. While primary care settings can consider using some of these strategies when referring depressed patients to treatment, our review highlights the need for further rigorous research in this area.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 90 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 16%
Student > Master 13 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 27 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 16%
Psychology 13 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 11%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 4%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 28 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 March 2019.
All research outputs
#2,064,752
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,579
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,125
of 333,983 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#32
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,983 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.