ArticleContemporary clinical trials2020
A comparative effectiveness trial of an information technology enhanced peer-integrated collaborative care intervention versus enhanced usual care for US trauma care systems: Clinical study protocol.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Trial
- A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial of a Collaborative Care Intervention for Spanish-Speaking Injury Survivors.Psychiatry · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Randomized clinical trial of peer integrated collaborative care intervention after physical injury.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2025Article
- A Rapid Ethnographic Assessment of the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Mental Health Services Delivery in an Acute Care Medical Emergency Department and Trauma Center.Administration and policy in mental health · 2022Article
- Catalyzing the Translation of Patient-Centered Research Into United States Trauma Care Systems: A Case Example.Medical care · 2021Review
- Article
- Experiences and Insights from the Early US COVID-19 Epicenter: A Rapid Assessment Procedure Informed Clinical Ethnography Case Series.Psychiatry · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Annually approximately 2-3 million Americans are so severely injured that they require inpatient hospitalization. The study team, which includes patients, clinical researchers, front-line provider and policy maker stakeholders, has been working together for over a decade to develop interventions that target improvements for US trauma care systems nationally. This pragmatic randomized trial compares a multidisciplinary team collaborative care intervention that integrates front-line trauma center staff with peer interventionists, versus trauma team notification of patient emotional distress with mental health consultation as enhanced usual care. The peer-integrated collaborative care intervention will be supported by a novel emergency department exchange health information technology platform. A total of 424 patients will be randomized to peer-integrated collaborative care (n = 212) and surgical team notification (n = 212) conditions. The study hypothesizes that patient's randomized to peer integrated collaborative care intervention will demonstrate significant reductions in emergency department health service utilization, severity of patient concerns, post traumatic stress disorder symptoms, and physical limitations when compared to surgical team notification. These four primary outcomes will be followed-up at 1- 3-, 6-, 9- and 12-months after injury for all patients. The Rapid Assessment Procedure Informed Clinical Ethnography (RAPICE) method will be used to assess implementation processes. Data from the primary outcome analysis and implementation process assessment will be used to inform an end-of-study policy summit with the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma. The policy summit will facilitate acute care practice changes related to patient-centered care transitions over the course of a single 5-year funding cycle. Trial registration: (Clinicaltrials.govNCT03569878).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.