Personalized care planning and shared decision making in collaborative care programs for depression and anxiety disorders: A systematic review

Matthew Menear; Ariane Girard; Michèle Dugas; Michel Gervais; Michel Gilbert; Marie-Pierre Gagnon

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0268649

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 27, 2021
6 Nov 2021 Decision Letter - Gerard Hutchinson, Editor PONE-D-21-13986Personalized care planning and shared decision making in collaborative care programs for depression and anxiety disorders: a systematic reviewPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Mennear, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== Please see comments of the reviewer which require revision. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by November 30, 2021. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Gerard Hutchinson, MD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf. 2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. "Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This is a well conducted and well written narrative review of the use of personalised care planning and shared decision making in collaborative care programmes. It follows similar articles by the authors on strategies used to engage patients and families in collaborative care programmes. I have no qualms in recommending this article be accepted for publication as written. Strengths of the article include: - well-defined research questions (p6) - pre-registration with the PROPSPERO (p7) - application of the PRISMA guidelines (p7) - retrieval of 'sibling' reports as well as academic trial reports (p7) - use of a previously validated search strategy, that is well described in other peer-reviewed publications by the authors (p7) - a well-considered definition of the collaborative care model, as it can mean different things to different people (p8) - well-defined and validated definitions of personalised care planning and shared decision-making (pp9-10) - the discussion makes some well-reasoned and valid points based on the methodology and results My only minor comments that the authors may wish to consider are: 1. The authors explain the emphasis placed on personalised care planning and SDM by developers and innovators of the collaborative acre approach, but they could explain WHY the inclusion of these elements was considered necessary by the original proponents of the CCM. They do explain this later (pp24-25) e.g. correlation between SDM and receipt of evidence-based treatment, reduction in depressive symptoms, and so on. They may want to introduce these impacts in the Introduction as well. 2. While the authors have extracted studies that expressly mention personalised care planning or SDM as part of the collaborative care offer, it may be of course that SDM occurred naturally in real world settings throughout collaborative care programmes (for example in discussions with patient and carers on whether to start antidepressants, or what therapy to consider) but was not made an explicit aim of a study or described specifically because SDM can be considered the default position of some professionals e.g. primary care physicians. The authors may want to reflect upon this, in that they may have underestimated the degree to which SDM actually occurs in real-world settings. 3. On p22 when the authors write 'Processes related to coordinating and supporting care were described in 94% and 98% of programs, respectively' - do they mean 94-98% of programmes that undertook care planning (not of all 150 collaborative care programmes that they included)? ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes:** Parashar Pravin Ramanuj [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268649.r001
Revision 1
2 Apr 2022 Author Response Response to Review (responses in Calibri font) Academic Editor Comments: 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Response: We have made some minor modifications to the manuscript’s title page to ensure that we have met the journal’s style requirements. 2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. Response: The minimal data set for this study has been published in the Harvard Dataverse and is available using the following URL: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/MWZOIE. 3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. Response: Our reference list has been reviewed and is complete. Reviewer Comments: 1. The authors explain the emphasis placed on personalised care planning and SDM by developers and innovators of the collaborative acre approach, but they could explain WHY the inclusion of these elements was considered necessary by the original proponents of the CCM. They do explain this later (pp24-25) e.g. correlation between SDM and receipt of evidence-based treatment, reduction in depressive symptoms, and so on. They may want to introduce these impacts in the Introduction as well. Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. Early papers on collaborative care did not always explain why it was important to engage and activate patients but we know that their models were largely influenced by the emergence of other frameworks like the Chronic Care Model. Katon in his work in the early 2000s provided more context in this trend by referring to the need for actions outside the clinical context and the importance of taking into consideration patient preferences to promote adherence to treatments. We have thus made some modifications to our introduction to better explain why mental health service providers became interested in engaging patients in their mental health care. Our introduction now states the following: (Page 4) Views on the roles of patients and families as active partners in collaborative care have similarly evolved (8, 9). There has been a growing acknowledgement that much of the work to promote patient recovery happens outside the clinic, and involves patients and families becoming better informed about their conditions, taking greater responsibility in illness management and learning to adopt psychosocial and lifestyle changes that can improve their well-being (9). Today, some view patients and families as the most important members of the collaborative care team and emphasize the need for supports in helping them become partners in care (10). (Page 5) People with common mental disorders may encounter a number of decisions over the course of their care that are preference-sensitive and that would warrant an SDM approach (18, 20). They may also hold strong preferences for some options over others, such as the types of treatments they wish to receive. 2. While the authors have extracted studies that expressly mention personalised care planning or SDM as part of the collaborative care offer, it may be of course that SDM occurred naturally in real world settings throughout collaborative care programmes (for example in discussions with patient and carers on whether to start antidepressants, or what therapy to consider) but was not made an explicit aim of a study or described specifically because SDM can be considered the default position of some professionals e.g. primary care physicians. The authors may want to reflect upon this, in that they may have underestimated the degree to which SDM actually occurs in real-world settings. Response: We definitely agree that it is possible that some personalized care planning and shared decision making was occurring within these programs and simply not reported or emphasized as a core component of their collaborative care model. We had acknowledged this possibility in our “Limitations to the review” section but have made some further modifications to ensure that this possibility stands out more clearly. Also, while we acknowledge this possibility, we also know from the literature that while clinicians may think that they are practicing these engagement strategies, more rigorous assessments of their practice show that they are often not doing so optimally and that without training and tools there are likely to be wide variations in these practices. We now state the following: (Page 32) It is possible that our findings underestimate the extent to which these engagement strategies were practiced in real-world practice settings, as some may consider shared care planning and decision-making to be already ingrained in practice and thus not noteworthy as collaborative care components. However, given the absence of training and tools available to support these practices we may assume that there could be considerable variations in practice with respect to care planning and SDM within the programs examined. 3. On p22 when the authors write 'Processes related to coordinating and supporting care were described in 94% and 98% of programs, respectively' - do they mean 94-98% of programmes that undertook care planning (not of all 150 collaborative care programmes that they included)? Response: Yes, we mean 94-98% of programs that featured care planning. This is now specified, both in that paragraph and in early paragraphs where necessary. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268649.r002
4 May 2022 Decision Letter - Gerard Hutchinson, Editor Personalized care planning and shared decision making in collaborative care programs for depression and anxiety disorders: a systematic review PONE-D-21-13986R1 Dear Dr.Mennear, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Gerard Hutchinson, MD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268649.r003
Formally Accepted
2 Jun 2022 Acceptance Letter - Gerard Hutchinson, Editor PONE-D-21-13986R1 Personalized care planning and shared decision making in collaborative care programs for depression and anxiety disorders: a systematic review Dear Dr. Menear: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Gerard Hutchinson Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268649.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .