Bogner 2008.

Methods	Study design: Pilot randomised controlled trial
Participants	Setting: Primary care Diagnosis: A diagnosis of depression or a prescription for an antidepressant medication within the past year Inclusion criteria: Aged 50 years and older, a systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or greater or diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or greater for non‐diabetic patients, or a systolic blood pressure of 130 mm Hg or greater or a diastolic blood pressure of 80 mm Hg or greater for patients with diabetes on at least 2 visits in the previous year, or a prescription for an antihypertensive medication within the past year Exclusion criteria: Cognitive impairment, unable to communicate in English, residing in a care facility that provides medications on a schedule, unable to use Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS) caps (AARDEX, Zug, Switzerland), which are microelectronic monitoring devices Age: Mean 58.6 (SD 6.8) years Gender: 77% female Ethnicity: 83% African American Country: Unitd States Sample size (randomised): Total participants 64, intervention 32, control 32
Interventions	Intervention: Integrated care Contains the four elements of collaborative care: 1) a multi‐professional approach to patient care: Family physician (PCP), research co‐ordinator (CM), academic PCP (MH specialist) 2) a structured management plan: Intervention focused on depression and hypertension and aimed to promote patients’ adherence to antihypertensive and AD treatment. CM collaborated with physicians to help patients understand and recognise depression in the context of hypertension, offered patients guideline‐based treatment recommendations, monitored treatment adherence and clinical status, assessed for side‐effects and assistance in their management, and provided appropriate follow‐up or referral. Individualised programme congruent with patients’ social and cultural context. 3) scheduled patient follow‐ups: 3 face‐to‐face, 2 phone contacts in 4‐week period 4) enhanced inter‐professional communication: CM acted as liaison between the PCP and patient to help patients recognise depression in the context of hypertension. CM received weekly supervision from MH specialist Control: Treatment as usual
Outcomes	Depression (CES‐D): 2, 4, 6, 12 weeks Medication use: 2, 4, 6 weeks
Notes	AD: antidepressant; CES‐D: Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression; CM: case manager; MH: mental health; PCP: primary care provider; SD: standard deviation
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information available to assess
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information available to assess
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Short‐term loss to follow‐up based on primary depression outcome (CES‐D) was: overall 0/64 (0%), 0/32 (0%) intervention and 0/32 (0%) control Intention‐to‐treat analysis not reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information available to assess
Other bias	Unclear risk	Insufficient information available to assess
Implementation Integrity	Low risk	Attempts were made to assess implementation integrity (e.g. direct observation or rating of tapes)
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Participants and personnel could not be blinded, outcome likely to be influenced by lack of blinding
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information available to assess