OBJECTIVE: Universal mental health screening in pediatric primary care is recommended, but studies report slow uptake and low rates of patient follow-through after referral to specialized services. This review examined possible explanations related to the process of screening, focusing on how parents and youth are engaged, and how providers evaluate and use screening results. METHOD: A narrative synthesis was developed after a systematic review of 3 databases (plus follow-up of citations, expert recommendations, and checks for multiple publications about the same study). Searching identified 1,188 titles, and of these, 186 full-text articles were reviewed. Two authors extracted data from 45 articles meeting inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Published studies report few details about how mental health screens were administered, including how clinicians explain their purpose or confidentiality, or whether help was provided for language, literacy, or disability problems. Although they were not addressed directly in the studies reviewed, uptake and detection rates appeared to vary with means of administration. Screening framed as universal, confidential, and intended to optimize attention to patient concerns increased acceptability. Studies said little about how providers were taught to explore screen results. Screening increased referrals, but many still followed negative screens, in some cases because of parent concerns apparently not reflected by screen results but possibly stemming from screen-prompted discussions. CONCLUSIONS: Little research has addressed the process of engaging patients in mental health screening in pediatric primary care or how clinicians can best use screening results. The literature does offer suggestions for better clinical practice and research that may lead to improvements in uptake and outcome.
OBJECTIVE: Universal mental health screening in pediatric primary care is recommended, but studies report slow uptake and low rates of patient follow-through after referral to specialized services. This review examined possible explanations related to the process of screening, focusing on how parents and youth are engaged, and how providers evaluate and use screening results. METHOD: A narrative synthesis was developed after a systematic review of 3 databases (plus follow-up of citations, expert recommendations, and checks for multiple publications about the same study). Searching identified 1,188 titles, and of these, 186 full-text articles were reviewed. Two authors extracted data from 45 articles meeting inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Published studies report few details about how mental health screens were administered, including how clinicians explain their purpose or confidentiality, or whether help was provided for language, literacy, or disability problems. Although they were not addressed directly in the studies reviewed, uptake and detection rates appeared to vary with means of administration. Screening framed as universal, confidential, and intended to optimize attention to patient concerns increased acceptability. Studies said little about how providers were taught to explore screen results. Screening increased referrals, but many still followed negative screens, in some cases because of parent concerns apparently not reflected by screen results but possibly stemming from screen-prompted discussions. CONCLUSIONS: Little research has addressed the process of engaging patients in mental health screening in pediatric primary care or how clinicians can best use screening results. The literature does offer suggestions for better clinical practice and research that may lead to improvements in uptake and outcome.
Authors: Chuck Norlin; Morgan A Crawford; Christopher T Bell; Xiaoming Sheng; Martin T Stein Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2011 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.107
Authors: Rahil D Briggs; Erin M Stettler; Ellen Johnson Silver; Rebecca D A Schrag; Meghna Nayak; Susan Chinitz; Andrew D Racine Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2012-01-09 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Megan E Pailler; Peter F Cronholm; Frances K Barg; Matthew B Wintersteen; Guy S Diamond; Joel A Fein Journal: Pediatr Emerg Care Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 1.454
Authors: Laura P Richardson; Charlotte W Lewis; Mary Casey-Goldstein; Elizabeth McCauley; Wayne Katon Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2007-02-15 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Anna B Flynn; Kate E Fothergill; Holly C Wilcox; Elizabeth Coleclough; Russell Horwitz; Anne Ruble; Matthew D Burkey; Lawrence S Wissow Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2015 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.107
Authors: Matthew C Aalsma; Ashley M Zerr; Dillon J Etter; Fangqian Ouyang; Amy Lewis Gilbert; Rebekah L Williams; James A Hall; Stephen M Downs Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2017-11-23 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Anne M Gadomski; Kate E Fothergill; Susan Larson; Lawrence S Wissow; Heather Winegrad; Zsolt J Nagykaldi; Ardis L Olson; Debra L Roter Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2015-01-10 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Christina D Bethell; Adam Carle; James Hudziak; Narangerel Gombojav; Kathleen Powers; Roy Wade; Paula Braveman Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2017 Sep - Oct Impact factor: 3.107