The Quality Improvement for Depression Collaboration

General Analytic Strategies for a Coordinated Study of Quality Improvement in Depression Care

Published in: General Hospital Psychiatry, v. 23, no. 5, Sep.-Oct. 2001, p. 239-253

Posted on RAND.org on January 01, 2001

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

Read More

Access further information on this document at General Hospital Psychiatry

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

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 use to evaluate these interventions, and discusses the implications of this heterogeneity for preplanned meta-analysis.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation external publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.