The Quality Improvement for Depression Collaboration: General analytic strategies for a coordinated study of quality improvement in depression care

Kathryn M. Rost, Naihua Duan, Lisa V. Rubenstein, Daniel E. Ford, Cathy D. Sherbourne, Lisa S. Meredith, Kenneth B. Wells

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

It is difficult to evaluate the promise of primary care quality-improvement interventions for depression because published studies have evaluated diverse interventions by using different research designs in dissimilar populations. Preplanned meta-analysis provides an alternative to derive more precise and generalizable estimates of intervention effects; however, this approach requires the resolution of analytic challenges resulting from design differences that threaten internal and external validity. This paper describes the four-project Quality Improvement for Depression (QID) collaboration specifically designed for preplanned meta-analysis of intervention effects on outcomes. This paper summarizes the interventions the four projects tested, characterizes commonalities and heterogeneity in the research designs used to evaluate these interventions, and discusses the implications of this heterogeneity for preplanned meta-analysis.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)239-253
Number of pages15
JournalGeneral Hospital Psychiatry
Volume23
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2001

Keywords

  • Depression
  • Meta-analysis
  • Primary care
  • Quality improvement

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'The Quality Improvement for Depression Collaboration: General analytic strategies for a coordinated study of quality improvement in depression care'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this