↓ Skip to main content

Comparing dedicated and designated models of integrating mental health into chronic disease care: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
274 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparing dedicated and designated models of integrating mental health into chronic disease care: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial
Published in
Trials, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13063-018-2568-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bronwyn Myers, Crick Lund, Carl Lombard, John Joska, Naomi Levitt, Christopher Butler, Susan Cleary, Tracey Naledi, Peter Milligan, Dan J. Stein, Katherine Sorsdahl

Abstract

In low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), it is uncertain whether a "dedicated" approach to integrating mental health care (wherein a community health worker (CHW) has the sole responsibility of delivering mental health care) or a "designated" approach (wherein a CHW provides this service in addition to usual responsibilities) is most effective and cost-effective. This study aims to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these two models of service integration relative to treatment as usual (TAU) for improving mental health and chronic disease outcomes among patients with HIV or diabetes. This is a cluster randomised trial. We will randomise 24 primary health care facilities in the Western Cape Province of South Africa to one of three study arms. Within each cluster, we will recruit 25 patients from HIV and 25 from diabetes services for a total sample of 1200 participants. Eligible patients will be aged 18 years or older, take medication for HIV or diabetes, and screen positive on the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test for hazardous/harmful alcohol use or depression on the Centre for Epidemiology Scale on Depression. Participants recruited in clinics assigned to the designated or dedicated approach will receive three sessions of motivational interviewing and problem-solving therapy, while those recruited at TAU-assigned clinics will be referred for further assessment. Participants will complete an interviewer-administered questionnaire at baseline, and at 6 and 12 months post-enrolment to assess change in self-reported outcomes. At these end points, we will test HIV RNA viral load for participants with HIV and HbA1c levels for participants with diabetes. Primary outcomes are reductions in self-reported hazardous/harmful alcohol use and risk of depression. Secondary outcomes are improvements in adherence to chronic disease treatment, biomarkers of chronic disease outcomes, and health-related quality of life. Mixed-effect linear regression models will model the effect of the interventions on primary and secondary outcomes. The cost-effectiveness of each approach will be assessed using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Study findings will guide decision-making around how best to integrate mental health counselling into chronic disease care in a LMIC setting. Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, Trial registration number: ACTR201610001825403 . Registered 17 October 2016.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 274 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 274 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 44 16%
Student > Master 38 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 11%
Student > Bachelor 24 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 6%
Other 57 21%
Unknown 66 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 11%
Psychology 29 11%
Social Sciences 19 7%
Unspecified 14 5%
Other 53 19%
Unknown 80 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 23 March 2019.
All research outputs
#4,157,990
of 17,144,747 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#1,476
of 4,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,357
of 284,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,144,747 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,519 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 284,115 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them