Kirsten van Steenbergen-Weijenburg, Trimbos-Institute
11 December 2012
Unfortunately, inadvertently a printing error occurred in the calculation of the efficiency rates in Table 3 and in Table 4 in the article. Therefore, the efficiency rates were too low. The actual efficiency rates are higher. We apologize and offer the Erratum with correct efficiency rates for both Tables. The efficiency rates were not mentioned in the text and the change does not affect the primary outcomes and the conclusions that are discussed in the article. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Table 3:
Score ¿8 = Efficiency 65.5%
Score ¿9 = Efficiency 67.5%
Score ¿10 = Efficiency 69.5%
Score ¿11 = Efficiency 75.6%
Score ¿12 = Efficiency 79.2%
Table 4
PHQ 0-27 = Efficiency 81.7%
Score >10 = Efficiency 63.7%
Erratum: efficiency rates
11 December 2012
Unfortunately, inadvertently a printing error occurred in the calculation of the efficiency rates in Table 3 and in Table 4 in the article. Therefore, the efficiency rates were too low. The actual efficiency rates are higher. We apologize and offer the Erratum with correct efficiency rates for both Tables. The efficiency rates were not mentioned in the text and the change does not affect the primary outcomes and the conclusions that are discussed in the article. We apologize for the inconvenience. Table 3: Score ¿8 = Efficiency 65.5% Score ¿9 = Efficiency 67.5% Score ¿10 = Efficiency 69.5% Score ¿11 = Efficiency 75.6% Score ¿12 = Efficiency 79.2% Table 4 PHQ 0-27 = Efficiency 81.7% Score >10 = Efficiency 63.7%Competing interests
None declared