Trial reportPsychiatric services (Washington, D.C.)2026
Disparities in the Treatment Engagement Cascade of Collaborative Care for Depression in a Pragmatic Implementation Study.
Trial report in Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Impact of collaborative care model treatment for depression and anxiety on cardiovascular risk factors using electronic health record data.Journal of affective disorders · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to examine disparities in treatment engagement in a pragmatic implementation trial of the collaborative care model (CoCM) for depression and anxiety.
methodsThis was a pragmatic, type 2 effectiveness-implementation, randomized rollout study of CoCM. Eleven primary care clinics were randomly assigned an intervention start date and engaged in a 1-year implementation and 1-year sustainment period. Data were extracted from electronic health records of primary care patients attending an associated clinic during the study period (October 1, 2018-January 31, 2023). Treatment engagement cascade steps were screened, referred, assessed, engaged, and completed. Logistic regression models identified demographic predictors (gender, race-ethnicity, age, and insurance status) at each step.
resultsA total of 117,949 primary care patients were included (59.3% were female, 78.9% were age <65, and 65.5% were White), and 59,000 patients (50.0%) were screened for CoCM. Screened patients were more likely to be Asian than White (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=1.11) and less likely to be male (AOR=0.97), Black/African American than White (AOR=0.84), and Medicaid insured (AOR=0.80). Of 1,999 patients referred to CoCM, 469 (20% of 2,329 patients eligible for referral) were CoCM eligible; referred patients were more likely to be Black/African American than White (AOR=1.60) and less likely to be male (AOR=0.72). A total of 986 patients (49% of referred) were assessed, 882 (90% of assessed) were engaged, and 307 (35% of engaged) completed treatment; no demographic differences were observed.
conclusionsImplementation strategies are needed to increase overall and equitable reach in CoCM treatment engagement for the most vulnerable patients.
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.