Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of Included Studies

From: Is care really shared? A systematic review of collaborative care (shared care) interventions for adult cancer patients with depression

Author, Year Country

Study Design and comparator group(s)

Study Aims

Primary outcome

Sample Size and % females

Mean Age (SD)

Cancer Type

Depression

Setting

Collaborative care protocol

Dwight-Johnson [35] (2005)

USA

Randomised pilot study comparing collaborative care intervention with usual care

Determine whether primary care collaborative depression be adapted and implemented in public sector oncology clinics serving low-income Latino patients

≥50% improvement in depression score (PHQ9) at 8 months

55 (100% female)

47.2 (11.3)

Breast or cervical, mixed stage

MDD dysthymia or had persistent depressive symptoms at baseline & 1 month

Cancer centre

IMPACT

Strong [36] (2008),

Scotland

Single centre proof of concept RCT comparing collaborative care intervention with usual care

Investigate whether usual care plus depression care for people with cancer (intervention) could achieve a greater reduction in depressive symptoms at 3 months compared to usual care alone, and whether this would be sustained at 6 and 12 months. (SMART1)

self-reported depressive symptoms (SCL-20D) at 3 months

200 (71% female)

56.6 (11.8)

Heterogeneous stage not reported

MDD

Cancer care centre

Depression Care for People with Cancer

Ell [37] (2008; 2011)

USA

Single centre efficacy RCT comparing collaborative care intervention with Enhanced usual care (standard oncology care plus psycho-educational pamphlets; list of center/community financial, social services, transportation, and childcare resources)

Determine the effectiveness of the Alleviating Depression Among Patients With Cancer (ADAPt-C) collaborative care management for major depression or dysthymia

Treatment response at 12 months; defined as 50% or a 5-point reduction of PHQ-9 score

472 (85% female)

TBC

Heterogeneous stage mixed

MDD or dysthymia

Cancer centre

IMPACT

Fann [38] (2009 USA)

Multicentre RCT comparing collaborative care intervention with usual care

Examine the effectiveness of collaborative care (IMPACT) for depression in in older primary care patients

treatment response defined ≥50% reduction in SCL-20 score at 12 months

215 (60% female)

71.75 (0.5)

Mixed type and stage

MDD or dysthymia

Primary Care

IMPACT

Kroenke [39] (2010)

USA

RCT comparing collaborative care intervention with usual care

To determine whether centralized telephone-based care management coupled with automated symptom monitoring can improve depression and pain in patients with cancer.

Reduction of ≥50% in depression severity;

(HSCL-20) at 12 months.

405 (309 depression; 68% female)

58.8 (10.8)

Mixed type and stage

depressed mood, anhedonia; or both.

Moderately severe based on PHQ9

Telephone

Study specific

Sharpe [40] (2014)

Scotland

multicentre effectiveness and cost effectiveness RCT comparing collaborative care intervention with usual care

Establish whether depression care for people with cancer (intervention) is better than usual care in achieving a clinically useful improvement in depression

(SMART 2)

‘treatment response’ measured at 24 weeks; defined as a reduction of ≥50% baseline depression score, measured via Symptom Checklist (SCL-20D)

500 (90% female)

56.3 (10.1)

Breast, gynaecological, genitourinary; ‘good prognosis’

MDD

Cancer care centre or primary care clinic

Depression Care for People with Cancer

Walker [33] (2014)

Scotland

Multicentre efficacy RCT comparing collaborative care intervention with usual care

Assess the efficacy of an integrated treatment programme (depression care for people with cancer) for major depression in patients with lung cancer compared with usual care. (SMART 3)

average depression severity during trial participation: participant’s depression severity averaged over the time from randomisation up to a maximum of 32 weeks

142 (65% female)

63.7 (8.8)

Lung; ‘poor prognosis’

MDD

Patient’s home or cancer centre/hospice

Depression Care for People with Cancer

Steel [34] (2016) USA

Multicentre efficacy RCT comparing collaborative care intervention Enhanced usual care (usual care + if a patient scored high on the CES-D care coordinator provided education about the symptoms and referrals to a mental health professional/ GP)

Examine the efficacy of a collaborative care intervention in reducing depression, pain, and fatigue and improve quality of life

Reduction in depression (CES-D) at 6 months

261 (82 depression; 27% female)

61 (11)

Upper GI cancer or other primary cancers with liver mets

No specific eligibility criteria for depression; subgroup analysis of patients with CES-D > 16 at baseline

Telephone and oncology outpatient clinic

Study specific