Matthew C Aalsma1, Ashley M Zerr2, Dillon J Etter3, Fangqian Ouyang4, Amy Lewis Gilbert5, Rebekah L Williams3, James A Hall3, Stephen M Downs5. 1. Section of Adolescent Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana. Electronic address: maalsma@iu.edu. 2. Department of Pediatrics, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, Kentucky. 3. Section of Adolescent Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Indiana University Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indianapolis, Indiana. 5. Children's Health Services Research, Department of Pediatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of computer-based screening and physician feedback to guide adolescent depression management within primary care. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study within two clinics of the computer-based depression screening and physician feedback algorithm among youth aged 12-20 years between October 2014 and October 2015 in Marion County (Indianapolis), Indiana. RESULTS: Our sample included 2,038 youth (51% female; 60% black; mean age = 14.6 years [standard deviation = 2.1]). Over 20% of youth screened positive for depression on the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 and 303 youth (14.8%) screened positive on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). The most common follow-up action by physicians was a referral to mental health services (34.2% mild, 46.8% moderate, and 72.2% severe range). Almost 11% of youth in the moderate range and 22.7% of youth in the severe range were already prescribed a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. When predicting mental health service referral, significant predictors in the multivariate analysis included clinic site (40.2% vs. 73.9%; p < .0001) and PHQ-9 score (severe range 77.8% vs. mild range 47.5%; p < .01). Similarly, when predicting initiation of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, only clinic site (28.6% vs. 6.9%; p < .01) and PHQ-9 score (severe range 46.7% vs. moderate range 10.6%; p < .001) were significant. CONCLUSIONS: When a computer-based decision support system algorithm focused on adolescent depression was implemented in two primary care clinics, a majority of physicians utilized screening results to guide clinical care.
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of computer-based screening and physician feedback to guide adolescent depression management within primary care. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study within two clinics of the computer-based depression screening and physician feedback algorithm among youth aged 12-20 years between October 2014 and October 2015 in Marion County (Indianapolis), Indiana. RESULTS: Our sample included 2,038 youth (51% female; 60% black; mean age = 14.6 years [standard deviation = 2.1]). Over 20% of youth screened positive for depression on the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 and 303 youth (14.8%) screened positive on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). The most common follow-up action by physicians was a referral to mental health services (34.2% mild, 46.8% moderate, and 72.2% severe range). Almost 11% of youth in the moderate range and 22.7% of youth in the severe range were already prescribed a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. When predicting mental health service referral, significant predictors in the multivariate analysis included clinic site (40.2% vs. 73.9%; p < .0001) and PHQ-9 score (severe range 77.8% vs. mild range 47.5%; p < .01). Similarly, when predicting initiation of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, only clinic site (28.6% vs. 6.9%; p < .01) and PHQ-9 score (severe range 46.7% vs. moderate range 10.6%; p < .001) were significant. CONCLUSIONS: When a computer-based decision support system algorithm focused on adolescent depression was implemented in two primary care clinics, a majority of physicians utilized screening results to guide clinical care.
Authors: Elise M Fallucco; Mary K Conlon; Gregory Gale; John N Constantino; Anne L Glowinski Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2012-03-08 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: R C Kessler; S Avenevoli; K A McLaughlin; J Greif Green; M D Lakoma; M Petukhova; D S Pine; N A Sampson; A M Zaslavsky; K Ries Merikangas Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2012-01-25 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: Elizabeth M Ozer; Elaine G Zahnd; Sally H Adams; Sheila R Husting; Charles J Wibbelsman; Kim P Norman; Susan M Smiga Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2009-03-12 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Rita Mangione-Smith; Alison H DeCristofaro; Claude M Setodji; Joan Keesey; David J Klein; John L Adams; Mark A Schuster; Elizabeth A McGlynn Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-10-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Laura P Richardson; Carol Rockhill; Joan E Russo; David C Grossman; Julie Richards; Carolyn McCarty; Elizabeth McCauley; Wayne Katon Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2010-04-05 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Hector M González; William A Vega; David R Williams; Wassim Tarraf; Brady T West; Harold W Neighbors Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2010-01
Authors: Allison McCord Stafford; Tamila Garbuz; Dillon J Etter; Zachary W Adams; Leslie A Hulvershorn; Stephen M Downs; Matthew C Aalsma Journal: J Pediatr Health Care Date: 2019-09-21 Impact factor: 1.812
Authors: Kristen E Beck; Dane Snyder; Christina Toth; Cody A Hostutler; Jennifer Tinto; Tiasha Barik Letostak; Aarti Chandawarkar; Alex R Kemper Journal: Pediatr Qual Saf Date: 2022-03-30