Dataset Information

Universal mental health screening in pediatric primary care: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: 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.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.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.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.

SUBMITTER: Wissow LS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3942871 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Universal mental health screening in pediatric primary care: a systematic review.

Wissow Lawrence S LS Brown Jonathan J Fothergill Kate E KE Gadomski Anne A Hacker Karen K Salmon Peter P Zelkowitz Rachel R

Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 20130830 11

<h4>Objective</h4>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.<h4>Method</h4>A narrative synthesis was developed after a systematic review of 3 databases (plus follow-up of cita ...[more]

PMID: 24157388

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceEmerging evidence suggests that integrated care models are associated with improved mental health care access and outcomes for youths (children ≤12 years and adolescents 12-21 years) served in pediatric primary care settings. However, the key components of these complex models remain unexamined.ObjectiveTo identify and describe the key components of effective pediatric integrated mental health care models.Evidence reviewThe PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials electronic databases were searched for relevant peer-reviewed articles published between January 1, 1985, and April 30, 2019. Articles were restricted to those published in the English language. Eligible articles reported original data on youths 17 years or younger, implemented an integrated mental health care model in a pediatric primary care setting, and assessed the model's association with primary outcomes (eg, mental health symptom severity) and secondary outcomes (eg, functional impairment and patient satisfaction). Articles that specified some degree of systematic coordination or collaboration between primary care and mental health professionals were included in the final review. Two independent reviewers extracted data on study design, model type, model components, level of integration, and outcomes. Study quality was assessed using the Jadad scale. Data were analyzed between January 1, 2018, and May 31, 2019.FindingsEleven randomized clinical trials involving 2190 participants were included. Three studies focused on youths with depression, 3 on youths with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and 5 on youths with behavioral disorders. Most studies (9 of 11) implemented either the collaborative care model (n = 3), a slightly modified version of the collaborative care model (n = 2), or colocated care (n = 4). The most commonly reported components of effective pediatric integrated mental health care models were population-based care, measurement-based care, and delivery of evidence-based mental health services; all 3 components were present in studies reporting clinical improvement of mental health symptoms. Other model components, such as treatment-to-target or team-based care, were common in studies reporting specific outcomes, such as functional impairment.Conclusions and relevanceThis review is the first to date to systematically search and qualitatively synthesize information on the key components of effective pediatric integrated mental health care models. This knowledge may be especially useful for pediatric primary care administrators in the selection of an integrated care model for their setting.

Project description:STUDY OBJECTIVE:We evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for pediatric patients with suicide-related emergency department (ED) visits. METHODS:We searched of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, other electronic databases, references, and key journals/conference proceedings. We included experimental or quasiexperimental studies that evaluated psychosocial interventions for pediatric suicide-related ED visits. Inclusion screening, study selection, and methodological quality were assessed by 2 independent reviewers. One reviewer extracted the data and a second checked for completeness and accuracy. Consensus was reached by conference; disagreements were adjudicated by a third reviewer. We calculated odds ratios, relative risks (RRs), or mean differences for each study's primary outcome, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Meta-analysis was deferred because of clinical heterogeneity in intervention, patient population, and outcome. RESULTS:We included 7 randomized controlled trials and 3 quasiexperimental studies, grouping and reviewing them according to intervention delivery: ED-based delivery (n=1), postdischarge delivery (n=6), and ED transition interventions (n=3). An ED-based discharge planning intervention increased the number of attended post-ED treatment sessions (mean difference=2.6 sessions; 95% CI 0.05 to 5.15 sessions). Of the 6 studies of postdischarge delivery interventions, 1 found increased adherence with service referral in patients who received community nurse home visits compared with simple placement referral at discharge (RR=1.28; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.56). The 3 ED transition intervention studies reported (1) reduced risk of subsequent suicide after brief ED intervention and postdischarge contact (RR=0.10; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.41); (2) reduced suicide-related hospitalizations when ED visits were followed up with interim, psychiatric care (RR=0.41; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.60); and (3) increased likelihood of treatment completion when psychiatric evaluation in the ED was followed by attendance of outpatient sessions with a parent (odds ratio=2.78; 95% CI 1.20 to 6.67). CONCLUSION:Transition interventions appear most promising for reducing suicide-related outcomes and improving post-ED treatment adherence. Use of similar interventions and outcome measures in future studies would enhance the ability to derive strong recommendations from the clinical evidence in this area.

Project description:BackgroundThe objective of the review was to synthesize evidence of barriers and facilitators to the integration of mental health services into PHC from existing literature. The structure of the review was guided by the SPIDER framework which involves the following: Sample or population of interest-primary care providers (PCPs); Phenomenon of Interest-integration of mental health services into primary health care (PHC); Design-influenced robustness and analysis of the study; Evaluation-outcomes included subjective outcomes (views and attitudes); and Research type-qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies.MethodsStudies that described mental health integration in PHC settings, involved primary care providers, and presented barriers/facilitators of mental health integration into PHC were included in the review. The sources of information included PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials, the WHO website, and OpenGrey. Assessment of bias and quality was done using two separate tools: the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) qualitative checklist and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies.ResultsTwenty studies met the inclusion criteria out of the 3353 search results. The most frequently reported barriers to integration of mental health services into PHC were (i) attitudes regarding program acceptability, appropriateness, and credibility; (ii) knowledge and skills; (iii) motivation to change; (iv) management and/or leadership; and (v) financial resources. In order to come up with an actionable approach to addressing the barriers, these factors were further analyzed along a behavior change theory.DiscussionWe have shown that the integration of mental health services into PHC has been carried out by various countries. The analysis from this review provides evidence to inform policy on the existing barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the mental health integration policy option. Not all databases may have been exhausted.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO 2016 (Registration Number: CRD42016052000 ) and published in BMC Systematic Reviews August 2017.

Project description:BackgroundChlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae are the most commonly reported sexually transmitted infections in Canada. Existing national guidance on screening for these infections was not based on a systematic review, and recommendations as well as implementation considerations (e.g., population groups, testing and case management) should be explicit and reflect the quality of evidence. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize research on screening for these infections in sexually active individuals within primary care. We will also review evidence on how people weigh the relative importance of the potential outcomes from screening, rated as most important by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) with input from patients and stakeholders.MethodsWe have developed a peer-reviewed strategy to comprehensively search MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO for English and French literature published 1996 onwards. We will also search trial registries and conference proceedings, and mine references lists. Screening, study selection, risk of bias assessments, and quality of findings across studies (for each outcome) will be independently undertaken by two reviewers with consensus for final decisions. Data extraction will be conducted by one reviewer and checked by another for accuracy and completeness. The CTFPHC and content experts will provide input for decisions on study design (i.e., when and whether to include uncontrolled studies for screening effectiveness) and for interpretation of the findings.DiscussionThe results section of the review will include a description of all studies, results of all analyses, including planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and evidence profiles and summary of findings tables incorporating assessment based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods to communicate our confidence in the estimates of effect. We will compare our findings to others and discuss limitations of the review and available literature. The findings will be used by the CTFPHC-supplemented by consultations with patients and stakeholders and from other sources on issues of feasibility, acceptability, costs/resources, and equity-to inform recommendations on screening to support primary health care providers in delivering preventive care.Systematic review registrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42018100733.

Project description:BackgroundMental health is an integral part of health and well-being and yet health systems have not adequately responded to the burden of mental disorders. Integrating mental health services into primary health care (PHC) is the most viable way of closing the treatment gap and ensuring that people get the mental health care they need. PHC was formally adapted by the World Health Organization (WHO), and they have since invested enormous amounts of resources across the globe to ensure that integration of mental health services into PHC works.MethodsThis review will use the SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type) framework approach to identify experiences of mental health integration into PHC; the findings will be reported using the "Best fit" framework synthesis. PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL) will be searched including other sources like the WHO website and OpenGrey database. Assessment of bias and quality will be done at study level using two separate tools to check for the quality of evidence presented. Data synthesis will take on two synergistic approaches (qualitative and quantitative studies). Synthesizing evidence from countries across the globe will provide useful insights into the experiences of integrating mental health services into PHC and how the barriers and challenges have been handled. The findings will be useful to a wide array of stakeholders involved in the implementation of the mental health integration into PHC.DiscussionThe SPIDER framework has been chosen for this review because of its suitable application to qualitative and mixed methods research and will be used as a guide when selecting articles for inclusion. Data extracted will be synthesized using the "Best fit" framework because it has been used before and proved its suitability in producing new conceptual models for explaining decision-making and possible behaviors. Synthesizing evidence from countries across the globe will provide useful insights into the experiences of integrating mental health services into PHC and how the barriers and challenges have been handled.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42016052000.

Project description:AimsThis systematic review compiled evidence on interventions to reduce mental health-related stigma in primary health care (PHC) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Studies targeting PHC staff (including non-professionals) were included. Primary outcomes were stigmatising attitudes and discriminatory behaviours.MethodsData collection included two strategies. First, previous systematic reviews were searched for studies that met the inclusion criteria of the current review. Second, a new search was done, covering the time since the previous reviews, i.e. January 2013 to May 2017. Five search concepts were combined in order to capture relevant literature: stigma, mental health, intervention, PHC staff and LMICs. A qualitative analysis of all included full-texts was done with software MAXQDA. Full-texts were analysed with regards to the content of interventions, didactic methods, mental disorders, cultural adaptation, type of outcome measure and primary outcomes. Furthermore, a risk of bias assessment was undertaken.ResultsA total of 18 studies were included. Risk of bias was rated as high in most included studies. Only six studies had tested their intervention against a control condition, two of which had used random allocation. Most frequently used interventions were lectures providing theoretical information. Many studies also used interactive methods (N = 9), discussed case studies (N = 8) or used role plays (N = 5). Three studies reported that they had used clinical practice and supervision. Results of these studies were mixed. No or little effects were found for brief training interventions (e.g. 1 h to 1 day). Longer training interventions with more sophisticated didactic methods produced statistically significant changes in validated stigma questionnaires. These results have to be interpreted with caution due to risk of bias. Methods for cultural adaptation of interventions were rarely documented.ConclusionsMore rigorous trials are needed in LMICs to test interventions that target discriminatory behaviours in relationship with patients. Cultural adaptation of stigma interventions and structural/institutional factors should be more explicitly addressed in such trials.

Dataset Information

Universal mental health screening in pediatric primary care: a systematic review.

Publications

Universal mental health screening in pediatric primary care: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets