Mayur M Desai1, Robert A Rosenheck, Thomas J Craig. 1. Mental Illness Research, Education, VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, Connecticut 06516, USA. mayur.desai@yale.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the rates and predictors of screening, screening positive, follow-up evaluation, and subsequent diagnosis of depression among medical outpatients. RESEARCH DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study using chart-review data from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 2002 External Peer Review Program merged with administrative data. SUBJECTS AND MEASURES: We studied a national sample of VA medical outpatients with no depression diagnosis or mental health visits in the past 6 months (n = 21,489) and used chart-review and administrative data to follow the chain of events from depression screening to diagnosis. RESULTS: Overall, 84.9% of eligible patients (n = 18,245) were screened for depression in the past year. Of the 8.8% who screened positive, only 54.0% received follow-up evaluation and, of these, 23.6% (n = 204) subsequently were diagnosed with a depressive disorder (representing 1.1% of the originally screened sample). Patients who were younger, unmarried, and had more medical comorbidities were less likely to be screened; however, if screened, they were more likely to screen positive. Male gender and greater medical comorbidity were associated with decreased odds of follow-up evaluation after a positive screen. At the facility level, likelihood of depression screening was inversely associated with spending on teaching and research but positively associated with spending on mental health care. CONCLUSIONS: VA's depression case-finding activities yielded relatively few positive cases, raising questions about cost-effectiveness. Targeted strategies may increase the value of case-finding among patients at greatest risk for depression and at more academically affiliated medical centers. Targeted efforts also are needed to ensure proper follow-up evaluation of suspected cases, particularly among male patients and those with increased medical comorbidity.
OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the rates and predictors of screening, screening positive, follow-up evaluation, and subsequent diagnosis of depression among medical outpatients. RESEARCH DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study using chart-review data from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 2002 External Peer Review Program merged with administrative data. SUBJECTS AND MEASURES: We studied a national sample of VA medical outpatients with no depression diagnosis or mental health visits in the past 6 months (n = 21,489) and used chart-review and administrative data to follow the chain of events from depression screening to diagnosis. RESULTS: Overall, 84.9% of eligible patients (n = 18,245) were screened for depression in the past year. Of the 8.8% who screened positive, only 54.0% received follow-up evaluation and, of these, 23.6% (n = 204) subsequently were diagnosed with a depressive disorder (representing 1.1% of the originally screened sample). Patients who were younger, unmarried, and had more medical comorbidities were less likely to be screened; however, if screened, they were more likely to screen positive. Male gender and greater medical comorbidity were associated with decreased odds of follow-up evaluation after a positive screen. At the facility level, likelihood of depression screening was inversely associated with spending on teaching and research but positively associated with spending on mental health care. CONCLUSIONS:VA's depression case-finding activities yielded relatively few positive cases, raising questions about cost-effectiveness. Targeted strategies may increase the value of case-finding among patients at greatest risk for depression and at more academically affiliated medical centers. Targeted efforts also are needed to ensure proper follow-up evaluation of suspected cases, particularly among male patients and those with increased medical comorbidity.
Authors: Joseph L Goulet; Joseph Erdos; Sue Kancir; Forrest L Levin; Steven M Wright; Stanlie M Daniels; Lynnette Nilan; Amy C Justice Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Katharine A Bradley; Laura J Chavez; Gwendolyn T Lapham; Emily C Williams; Carol E Achtmeyer; Anna D Rubinsky; Eric J Hawkins; Richard Saitz; Daniel R Kivlahan Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Elizabeth M Yano; Edmund F Chaney; Duncan G Campbell; Ruth Klap; Barbara F Simon; Laura M Bonner; Andrew B Lanto; Lisa V Rubenstein Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: William C Becker; Kirsha Gordon; E Jennifer Edelman; Robert D Kerns; Stephen Crystal; James D Dziura; Lynn E Fiellin; Adam J Gordon; Joseph L Goulet; Amy C Justice; David A Fiellin Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2016-03
Authors: Lauren D Garfield; Jeffrey F Scherrer; Paul J Hauptman; Kenneth E Freedland; Tim Chrusciel; Sumitra Balasubramanian; Robert M Carney; John W Newcomer; Richard Owen; Kathleen K Bucholz; Patrick J Lustman Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2014-01-16 Impact factor: 4.312
Authors: Joseph L Goulet; Cynthia Brandt; Stephen Crystal; David A Fiellin; Cynthia Gibert; Adam J Gordon; Robert D Kerns; Stephen Maisto; Amy C Justice Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Jeffrey L Smith; John W Williams; Richard R Owen; Lisa V Rubenstein; Edmund Chaney Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2008-12-31 Impact factor: 7.327