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