↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of transmural collaborative care with consultation letter (TCCCL) and duloxetine for major depressive disorder (MDD) and (sub)chronic pain in collaboration with…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
248 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of transmural collaborative care with consultation letter (TCCCL) and duloxetine for major depressive disorder (MDD) and (sub)chronic pain in collaboration with primary care: design of a randomized placebo-controlled multi-Centre trial: TCC:PAINDIP
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, May 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-244x-13-147
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eric W de Heer, Jack Dekker, Jonna F van Eck van der Sluijs, Aartjan TF Beekman, Harm WJ van Marwijk, Tjalling J Holwerda, Pierre M Bet, Joost Roth, Leona Hakkaart-Van Roijen, Lianne Ringoir, Fiona Kat, Christina M van der Feltz-Cornelis

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The comorbidity of pain and depression is associated with high disease burden for patients in terms of disability, wellbeing, and use of medical care. Patients with major and minor depression often present themselves with pain to a general practitioner and recognition of depression is such cases is low, but evolving. Also, physical symptoms, including pain, in major depressive disorder, predict a poorer response to treatment. A multi-faceted, patient-tailored treatment programme, like collaborative care, is promising. However, treatment of chronic pain conditions in depressive patients has, so far, received limited attention in research. Cost effectiveness of an integrated approach of pain in depressed patients has not been studied.This article describes the aims and design of a study to evaluate effects and costs of collaborative care with the antidepressant duloxetine for patients with pain symptoms and a depressive disorder, compared to collaborative care with placebo and compared to duloxetine alone.Methods/design: This study is a placebo controlled double blind, three armed randomized multi centre trial. Patients with (sub)chronic pain and a depressive disorder are randomized to either a) collaborative care with duloxetine, b) collaborative care with placebo or c) duloxetine alone. 189 completers are needed to attain sufficient power to show a clinically significant effect of 0.6 SD on the primary outcome measures (PHQ-9 score). Data on depression, anxiety, mental and physical health, medication adherence, medication tolerability, quality of life, patient-doctor relationship, coping, health resource use and productivity will be collected at baseline and after three, six, nine and twelve months.In the collaborative care conditions a) and b), a care-manager provides Problem Solving Treatment and integrated symptom management guidance with a self-help manual, monitors depressive and pain symptoms, and refers patients to a physiotherapist for treatment according to a 'Graded Activity' protocol. A psychiatrist provides duloxetine or placebo and pain medication according to algorithms, and also monitors pain and depressive symptoms. In condition c), the psychiatrist prescribes duloxetine without collaborative care. After 12 weeks, the patient is referred back to the general practitioner with a consultation letter, with information for further treatment of the patient. DISCUSSION: This study enables us to show the value of a closely monitored integrated treatment model above usual pharmacological treatment.Furthermore, a comparison with a placebo arm enables us to evaluate effectiveness of duloxetine in this population in a real life setting. Also, this study will provide evidence-based treatments and tools for their implementation in practice. This will facilitate generalization and implementation of results of this study. Moreover, patients included in this study are screened for pain symptoms, differentiating between nociceptive and neuropathic pain. can be thoroughly evaluated.Trial registration: NTR1089 http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=1089.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 248 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
Unknown 245 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 16%
Researcher 37 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 13%
Student > Bachelor 23 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 6%
Other 33 13%
Unknown 69 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 21%
Psychology 40 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 11%
Social Sciences 11 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 4%
Other 31 13%
Unknown 76 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 June 2018.
All research outputs
#15,272,611
of 22,711,242 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#3,336
of 4,648 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,361
of 195,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#57
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,242 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,648 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.8. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 195,245 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.