PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Screening young people for emotional disorder in primary care has seemed sensible given most attend annually and most mental disorder is undetected. Yet evidence supporting screening has been scant. This review considers recent progress around conceptual frameworks, epidemiological findings, accuracy of available instruments and evidence for effectiveness of screening in reducing the burden of emotional disorders. RECENT FINDINGS: Despite better evidence about the accuracy of screens in identifying adolescent depression and possible benefits of early intervention with current treatments, demonstration of improved health outcomes and cost-effectiveness is still lacking. Even when screening detects mental disorder other factors such as readiness for care and availability of effective treatments may affect responses. Best results are obtained when screening is linked to collaborative models of care. Evidence around harms from screening is scant but debate exists over potential harms of false-positives such as stigma and increased strain on healthcare resources. SUMMARY: There is growing consensus that, if screening for emotional disorder is to be effective in primary care, facilitated access of identified young people to effective treatment options is necessary. Further research is required to demonstrate that routine screening will improve mental health outcomes and be cost-effective.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Screening young people for emotional disorder in primary care has seemed sensible given most attend annually and most mental disorder is undetected. Yet evidence supporting screening has been scant. This review considers recent progress around conceptual frameworks, epidemiological findings, accuracy of available instruments and evidence for effectiveness of screening in reducing the burden of emotional disorders. RECENT FINDINGS: Despite better evidence about the accuracy of screens in identifying adolescent depression and possible benefits of early intervention with current treatments, demonstration of improved health outcomes and cost-effectiveness is still lacking. Even when screening detects mental disorder other factors such as readiness for care and availability of effective treatments may affect responses. Best results are obtained when screening is linked to collaborative models of care. Evidence around harms from screening is scant but debate exists over potential harms of false-positives such as stigma and increased strain on healthcare resources. SUMMARY: There is growing consensus that, if screening for emotional disorder is to be effective in primary care, facilitated access of identified young people to effective treatment options is necessary. Further research is required to demonstrate that routine screening will improve mental health outcomes and be cost-effective.
Authors: Michael Kaess; Romuald Brunner; Peter Parzer; Vladimir Carli; Alan Apter; Judit A Balazs; Julio Bobes; Horia G Coman; Doina Cosman; Padraig Cotter; Tony Durkee; Luca Farkas; Dana Feldman; Christian Haring; Miriam Iosue; Jean-Pierre Kahn; Helen Keeley; Tina Podlogar; Vita Postuvan; Franz Resch; Pilar A Sáiz; Merike Sisask; Alexandra Tubiana; Peeter Värnik; Marco Sarchiapone; Christina W Hoven; Danuta Wasserman Journal: Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2013-11-19 Impact factor: 4.785
Authors: E Schaffalitzky; D Leahy; W Cullen; B Gavin; L Latham; R O'Connor; B P Smyth; E O'Dea; S Ryan Journal: Ir J Med Sci Date: 2014-09-06 Impact factor: 1.568
Authors: Dean P McKenzie; John W Toumbourou; Andrew B Forbes; Andrew J Mackinnon; Barbara J McMorris; Richard F Catalano; George C Patton Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2011-06-13 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Lawrence S Wissow; Jonathan Brown; Kate E Fothergill; Anne Gadomski; Karen Hacker; Peter Salmon; Rachel Zelkowitz Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2013-08-30 Impact factor: 8.829
Authors: Lena Sanci; Brenda Grabsch; Patty Chondros; Alan Shiell; Jane Pirkis; Susan Sawyer; Kelsey Hegarty; Elizabeth Patterson; Helen Cahill; Elizabeth Ozer; Janelle Seymour; George Patton Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-06-06 Impact factor: 3.295