Julie E Richards1,2, Sarah D Hohl3, Ursula Whiteside4, Evette J Ludman5, David C Grossman5,3,6, Greg E Simon5,7, Susan M Shortreed5, Amy K Lee5, Rebecca Parrish7, Mary Shea5, Ryan M Caldeiro7, Robert B Penfold5,3, Emily C Williams5,3,8. 1. Kaiser Permanente Washington Heath Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA. Julie.E.Richards@kp.org. 2. Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. Julie.E.Richards@kp.org. 3. Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 4. NowMattersNow.org, Seattle, WA, USA. 5. Kaiser Permanente Washington Heath Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA. 6. Department of Preventive Care, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 7. Mental Heath & Wellness, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 8. Health Services Research & Development (HSR&D), Center of Innovation for Veteran-Centered Value-Driven Care, Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Routine population-based screening for depression is an essential part of evolving health care models integrating care for mental health in primary care. Depression instruments often include questions about suicidal thoughts, but how patients experience these questions in primary care is not known and may have implications for accurate identification of patients at risk. OBJECTIVES: To explore the patient experience of routine population-based depression screening/assessment followed, for some, by suicide risk assessment and discussions with providers. DESIGN: Qualitative, interview-based study. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-seven patients from Kaiser Permanente Washington who had recently screened positive for depression on the 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ] and completed the full PHQ-9. APPROACH: Criterion sampling identified patients who had recently completed the PHQ-9 ninth question which asks about the frequency of thoughts about self-harm. Patients completed semi-structured interviews by phone, which were recorded and transcribed. Directive and conventional content analyses were used to apply knowledge from prior research and elucidate new information from interviews; thematic analysis was used to organize key content overall and across groups based on endorsement of suicide ideation. KEY RESULTS: Four main organizing themes emerged from analyses: (1) Participants believed being asked about suicidality was contextually appropriate and valuable, (2) some participants described a mismatch between their lived experience and the PHQ-9 ninth question, (3) suicidality disclosures involved weighing hope for help against fears of negative consequences, and (4) provider relationships and acts of listening and caring facilitated discussions about suicidality. CONCLUSIONS: All participants believed being asked questions about suicidal thoughts was appropriate, though some who disclosed suicidal thoughts described experiencing stigma and sometimes distanced themselves from suicidality. Direct communication with trusted providers, who listened and expressed empathy, bolstered comfort with disclosure. Future research should consider strategies for reducing stigma and encouraging fearless disclosure among primary care patients experiencing suicidality.
BACKGROUND: Routine population-based screening for depression is an essential part of evolving health care models integrating care for mental health in primary care. Depression instruments often include questions about suicidal thoughts, but how patients experience these questions in primary care is not known and may have implications for accurate identification of patients at risk. OBJECTIVES: To explore the patient experience of routine population-based depression screening/assessment followed, for some, by suicide risk assessment and discussions with providers. DESIGN: Qualitative, interview-based study. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-seven patients from Kaiser Permanente Washington who had recently screened positive for depression on the 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ] and completed the full PHQ-9. APPROACH: Criterion sampling identified patients who had recently completed the PHQ-9 ninth question which asks about the frequency of thoughts about self-harm. Patients completed semi-structured interviews by phone, which were recorded and transcribed. Directive and conventional content analyses were used to apply knowledge from prior research and elucidate new information from interviews; thematic analysis was used to organize key content overall and across groups based on endorsement of suicide ideation. KEY RESULTS: Four main organizing themes emerged from analyses: (1) Participants believed being asked about suicidality was contextually appropriate and valuable, (2) some participants described a mismatch between their lived experience and the PHQ-9 ninth question, (3) suicidality disclosures involved weighing hope for help against fears of negative consequences, and (4) provider relationships and acts of listening and caring facilitated discussions about suicidality. CONCLUSIONS: All participants believed being asked questions about suicidal thoughts was appropriate, though some who disclosed suicidal thoughts described experiencing stigma and sometimes distanced themselves from suicidality. Direct communication with trusted providers, who listened and expressed empathy, bolstered comfort with disclosure. Future research should consider strategies for reducing stigma and encouraging fearless disclosure among primary care patients experiencing suicidality.
Authors: Kimberly A Van Orden; Tracy K Witte; Kelly C Cukrowicz; Scott R Braithwaite; Edward A Selby; Thomas E Joiner Journal: Psychol Rev Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 8.934
Authors: Brian K Ahmedani; Gregory E Simon; Christine Stewart; Arne Beck; Beth E Waitzfelder; Rebecca Rossom; Frances Lynch; Ashli Owen-Smith; Enid M Hunkeler; Ursula Whiteside; Belinda H Operskalski; M Justin Coffey; Leif I Solberg Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-02-25 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Linda Ganzini; Lauren M Denneson; Nancy Press; Matthew J Bair; Drew A Helmer; Jennifer Poat; Steven K Dobscha Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Gwen T Lapham; Amy K Lee; Ryan M Caldeiro; Dennis McCarty; Kendall C Browne; Denise D Walker; Daniel R Kivlahan; Katharine A Bradley Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2017 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Mitchell D Feldman; Peter Franks; Paul R Duberstein; Steven Vannoy; Ronald Epstein; Richard L Kravitz Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2007 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Albert L Siu; Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; David C Grossman; Linda Ciofu Baumann; Karina W Davidson; Mark Ebell; Francisco A R García; Matthew Gillman; Jessica Herzstein; Alex R Kemper; Alex H Krist; Ann E Kurth; Douglas K Owens; William R Phillips; Maureen G Phipps; Michael P Pignone Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-01-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Craig J Bryan; Alexis M May; David C Rozek; Sean R Williams; Tracy A Clemans; Jim Mintz; Bruce Leeson; T Scott Burch Journal: Depress Anxiety Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 6.505
Authors: Alice Malpass; Chris Dowrick; Simon Gilbody; Jude Robinson; Nicola Wiles; Larisa Duffy; Glyn Lewis Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Rachel E Gicquelais; Mary Jannausch; Amy S B Bohnert; Laura Thomas; Srijan Sen; Anne C Fernandez Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2020-05-16 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Zachary A Cupler; Clinton J Daniels; Derek R Anderson; Michael T Anderson; Jason G Napuli; Megan E Tritt Journal: J Can Chiropr Assoc Date: 2021-08
Authors: Madeline C Frost; Julie E Richards; John R Blosnich; Eric J Hawkins; Judith I Tsui; E Jennifer Edelman; Emily C Williams Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2022-06-03 Impact factor: 4.852
Authors: Julie E Richards; Sarah D Hohl; Courtney D Segal; David C Grossman; Amy K Lee; Ursula Whiteside; Casey Luce; Evette J Ludman; Greg Simon; Robert B Penfold; Emily C Williams Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Summer Newell; Lauren Denneson; Annabelle Rynerson; Sarah Rabin; Victoria Elliott; Nazanin Bahraini; Edward P Post; Steven K Dobscha Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-12-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mariska de Wit; Nina Zipfel; Bedra Horreh; Carel T J Hulshof; Haije Wind; Angela G E M de Boer Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2022-01-07 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: Julie E Richards; Susan M Shortreed; Greg E Simon; Robert B Penfold; Joseph E Glass; Rebecca Ziebell; Emily C Williams Journal: J Addict Med Date: 2020 Sep/Oct Impact factor: 4.647
Authors: Laura M Frey; Christopher W Drapeau; Anthony Fulginiti; Nathalie Oexle; Dese'Rae L Stage; Lindsay Sheehan; Julie Cerel; Melinda Moore Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-10-10 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Molly Davis; Courtney Benjamin Wolk; Shari Jager-Hyman; Rinad S Beidas; Jami F Young; Jennifer A Mautone; Alison M Buttenheim; David S Mandell; Kevin G Volpp; Katherine Wislocki; Anne Futterer; Darby Marx; E L Dieckmeyer; Emily M Becker-Haimes Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2020-09-26