Table 1.

Study Characteristics.

TRIAL	DURATION AND FOLLOW-UP	STUDY PARTICIPANTS	SETTING	CONTROL	INTERVENTION	MDT MEETING DESCRIPTION	OUTCOMES	RESULTS
Counsell et al 2007 [25]	Intervention: 24 months Follow-up: 6, 12, 18 and 24 months	Aged ≥ 65, Annual income 200% < federal poverty level, comorbidities (n = 951)	Primary care practice serving approximately 6000 patients	Usual care (n = 477)	Geriatric care management model: GRACE intervention (n = 474)	Weekly interdisciplinary team meetings (nurse practioner, social worker, primary care physician) to review support team success in implementing care protocols and problem solve barriers to implementation	Physical health, Function health, Utilisation of health services,	Improved scores in 4/8 components of the SF-36 in intervention group participants compared to standard care No differences observed in ADL scores between intervention group and standard care Mortality rate is reduced in the intervention group in comparison to standard care Hospitalisation and ED visits were lower in intervention group participants in the last 12 months of the trial,
Harpole et al 2005 [26]	Intervention: 12 months Follow-up: 3, 6, 12 months	Aged ≥ 60, Major depression or dysthymia and ≥ 1 other chronic condition. (n = 1801)	18 primary care clinics	Usual care (n = 895)	IMPACT intervention (n = 906)	The district care nurse met weekly with the supervising psychiatrist and the liaison primary care physician to monitor progress and adjust treatment plans as needed	Mental health, Functional health	Significantly lowerSCL-30 depression scores in intervention patients compared to usualcare Improved MCS-12 scores at the 3- and 12- month interval in intervention group participants, in comparison to standardcare Improved scores of quality of life in the interventiongroup compared to those that received standard care
Katon et al 2010/2012 [23,24]	Intervention: 24 months Follow-up: 6, 12, 18, 24 months	Depression and diabetes, or coronary heart disease, or both (n = 214)	14 primary care clinics	Enhanced usual care (n = 108)	TEAMcare program (n = 106)	Nurses met weekly for systematic case reviews with the family physician, consulting psychiatrist and internist, to enhance care coordination and ensure accountability for follow-up to guideline level disease management and achieve clinical goals	Physical health, Mental health, Functional health, Provider behaviour, Acceptability of services, Costs and cost-effectiveness	Improved LDL cholesterol levels, systolic bloodpressure 12 months, but the intervention group displayed no differencesat the 18- and 24 months interval Improved SCL-20scores within intervention participants The intervention group participants had 114additional depression-free days and an additional 0.335 QALYS Morelikely to have drug adjustments Intervention group participants experienced agreater satisfaction with their care in comparison to patients whoreceived standard care The intervention was cost-effective
Sommers et al 2000 [27]	Intervention: 24 months Follow-up: 12 months post-intervention	Aged > 65, ≥ 2 chronic conditions (n = 543)	18 primary care clinics	Usual care (n = 263)	Collaborative Care (n = 280)	The physician, the nurse and the social worker met at least monthly to review each patient’s status and revise care plans.	Physical health, Functional health, Utilisation of health services, Costs and cost-effectiveness	Improved hospitalisation rate, mean primary care physician officevisits among the intervention group participants in comparison to thosewho received usual care Increase in social activity The interventionwas cost-effective

Abbreviations: SF-36; short form survey 36, MDT; multidisciplinary team, ADL; activities of daily living, ED; emergency department, SCL-30; check list of symptoms 30, GRACE; geriatric resources for the assessment and care of elders, IMPACT; improving mood-promoting access to collaborative treatment, LDL; low-density lipoprotein, n; number of participants.