Daniela Heddaeus, Tharanya Seeralan, Kerstin Maehder, Sarah Porzelt, Anne Daubmann, Judith Dams, Thomas Grochtdreis, Hans-Helmut König, Olaf von dem Knesebeck, Bernd Löwe, Amra Pepić, Moritz Rosenkranz, Ingo Schäfer, Thomas Zimmermann, Bernd Schulte, Angelika Weigel, Karl Wegscheider, Silke Werner, Antonia Zapf, Martin Scherer, Jörg Dirmaier, Martin Härter
{"title":"Collaborative and Stepped Care for Mental Disorders: Results of a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial in Outpatient Care (the COMET Study).","authors":"Daniela Heddaeus, Tharanya Seeralan, Kerstin Maehder, Sarah Porzelt, Anne Daubmann, Judith Dams, Thomas Grochtdreis, Hans-Helmut König, Olaf von dem Knesebeck, Bernd Löwe, Amra Pepić, Moritz Rosenkranz, Ingo Schäfer, Thomas Zimmermann, Bernd Schulte, Angelika Weigel, Karl Wegscheider, Silke Werner, Antonia Zapf, Martin Scherer, Jörg Dirmaier, Martin Härter","doi":"10.3238/arztebl.m2025.0011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Collaborative and stepped care (CSC) models are recommended in guidelines because of their documented effectiveness in treating depression and anxiety disorders. The evidence for their efficacy against other mental disorders is limited. In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of a collaborative and stepped care model (COMET) for patients with depressive, anxiety, somatoform and/or alcohol-related disorders and related comorbidities in the outpatient care setting in Germany.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a prospective, cluster-randomized, controlled, parallel-group superiority trial; the subjects were patients in primary care practices. The primary outcome was the change in mental health-related quality of life, assessed with the SF-36 Mental-Health Component Summary Score (MCS) at six months in the intention-to-treat population. The secondary outcomes were symptom severity, remission, and response.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>41 primary care practices were randomized either to COMET (the CSC group, n = 20) or treatment as usual (the TAU group, n = 21). 615 patients were recruited (CSC: n = 307; TAU: n = 308). Data were available for 62% (CSC) and 55% (TAU) of the subjects at six months. No significant difference was found between groups with respect to the primary outcome (-1.96 [95% confidence interval: [-4.39; 0.48], p = 0.113) or any of the secondary outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We found no superiority of CSC in the treatment of the mental disorders addressed in this study. Methodological issues, including differences at baseline and high dropout rates, make these findings challenging to interpret. Future studies should ensure comparability of groups, allocate resources for quality management, and investigate more suitable outcome measures, with attention to factors of implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":11258,"journal":{"name":"Deutsches Arzteblatt international","volume":" Forthcoming","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Deutsches Arzteblatt international","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.m2025.0011","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Collaborative and stepped care (CSC) models are recommended in guidelines because of their documented effectiveness in treating depression and anxiety disorders. The evidence for their efficacy against other mental disorders is limited. In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of a collaborative and stepped care model (COMET) for patients with depressive, anxiety, somatoform and/or alcohol-related disorders and related comorbidities in the outpatient care setting in Germany.
Methods: We conducted a prospective, cluster-randomized, controlled, parallel-group superiority trial; the subjects were patients in primary care practices. The primary outcome was the change in mental health-related quality of life, assessed with the SF-36 Mental-Health Component Summary Score (MCS) at six months in the intention-to-treat population. The secondary outcomes were symptom severity, remission, and response.
Results: 41 primary care practices were randomized either to COMET (the CSC group, n = 20) or treatment as usual (the TAU group, n = 21). 615 patients were recruited (CSC: n = 307; TAU: n = 308). Data were available for 62% (CSC) and 55% (TAU) of the subjects at six months. No significant difference was found between groups with respect to the primary outcome (-1.96 [95% confidence interval: [-4.39; 0.48], p = 0.113) or any of the secondary outcomes.
Conclusion: We found no superiority of CSC in the treatment of the mental disorders addressed in this study. Methodological issues, including differences at baseline and high dropout rates, make these findings challenging to interpret. Future studies should ensure comparability of groups, allocate resources for quality management, and investigate more suitable outcome measures, with attention to factors of implementation.
期刊介绍:
Deutsches Ärzteblatt International is a bilingual (German and English) weekly online journal that focuses on clinical medicine and public health. It serves as the official publication for both the German Medical Association and the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians. The journal is dedicated to publishing independent, peer-reviewed articles that cover a wide range of clinical medicine disciplines. It also features editorials and a dedicated section for scientific discussion, known as correspondence.
The journal aims to provide valuable medical information to its international readership and offers insights into the German medical landscape. Since its launch in January 2008, Deutsches Ärzteblatt International has been recognized and included in several prestigious databases, which helps to ensure its content is accessible and credible to the global medical community. These databases include:
Carelit
CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature)
Compendex
DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals)
EMBASE (Excerpta Medica database)
EMNursing
GEOBASE (Geoscience & Environmental Data)
HINARI (Health InterNetwork Access to Research Initiative)
Index Copernicus
Medline (MEDLARS Online)
Medpilot
PsycINFO (Psychological Information Database)
Science Citation Index Expanded
Scopus
By being indexed in these databases, Deutsches Ärzteblatt International's articles are made available to researchers, clinicians, and healthcare professionals worldwide, contributing to the global exchange of medical knowledge and research.