↓ Skip to main content

Enablers and barriers to implementing collaborative care for anxiety and depression: a systematic qualitative review

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
102 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
208 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
Enablers and barriers to implementing collaborative care for anxiety and depression: a systematic qualitative review
Published in
Implementation Science, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13012-016-0519-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gritt Overbeck, Annette Sofie Davidsen, Marius Brostrøm Kousgaard

Abstract

Collaborative care is an increasingly popular approach for improving quality of care for people with mental health problems through an intensified and structured collaboration between primary care providers and health professionals with specialized psychiatric expertise. Trials have shown significant positive effects for patients suffering from depression, but since collaborative care is a complex intervention, it is important to understand the factors which affect its implementation. We present a qualitative systematic review of the enablers and barriers to implementing collaborative care for patients with anxiety and depression. We developed a comprehensive search strategy in cooperation with a research librarian and performed a search in five databases (EMBASE, PubMed, PsycINFO, ProQuest, and CINAHL). All authors independently screened titles and abstracts and reviewed full-text articles. Studies were included if they were published in English and based on the original qualitative data on the implementation of a collaborative care intervention targeted at depression or anxiety in an adult patient population in a high-income country. Our subsequent analysis employed the normalization process theory (NPT). We included 17 studies in our review of which 11 were conducted in the USA, five in the UK, and one in Canada. We identified several barriers and enablers within the four major analytical dimensions of NPT. Securing buy-in among primary care providers was found to be critical but sometimes difficult. Enablers included physician champions, reimbursement for extra work, and feedback on the effectiveness of collaborative care. The social and professional skills of the care managers seemed critical for integrating collaborative care in the primary health care clinic. Day-to-day implementation was also found to be facilitated by the care managers being located in the clinic since this supports regular face-to-face interactions between physicians and care managers. The following areas require special attention when planning collaborative care interventions: effective educational programs, especially for care managers; issues of reimbursement in relation to primary care providers; good systems for communication and monitoring; and promoting face-to-face interaction between care managers and physicians, preferably through co-location. There is a need for well-sampled, in-depth qualitative studies on the implementation of collaborative care in settings outside the USA and the UK.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users 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 208 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 207 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 13%
Student > Master 23 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 7%
Student > Bachelor 13 6%
Other 38 18%
Unknown 71 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 16%
Social Sciences 27 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 11%
Psychology 20 10%
Computer Science 5 2%
Other 25 12%
Unknown 76 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 04 November 2023.
All research outputs
#3,170,431
of 25,262,379 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#652
of 1,795 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,283
of 433,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#14
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,262,379 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,795 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
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 433,695 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.