Dataset Information

Implementing the Routine Use of Electronic Mental Health Screening for Youth in Primary Care: Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Adolescents often present at primary care clinics with nonspecific physical symptoms when, in fact, they have at least 1 mental health or risk behavior (psychosocial) issue with which they would like help but do not disclose to their care provider. Despite global recommendations, over 50% of youths are not screened for mental health and risk behavior issues in primary care.

Objective

This review aimed to examine the implementation, acceptability, feasibility, benefits, and barriers of e-screening tools for mental health and risk behaviors among youth in primary care settings.

Methods

Electronic databases-MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews-were searched for studies on the routine screening of youth in primary care settings. Screening tools needed to be electronic and screen for at least 1 mental health or risk behavior issue. A total of 11 studies that were reported in 12 articles, of which all were from high-income countries, were reviewed.

Results

e-Screening was largely proven to be feasible and acceptable to youth and their primary care providers. Preconsultation e-screening facilitated discussions about sensitive issues and increased disclosure by youth. However, barriers such as the lack of time, training, and discomfort in raising sensitive issues with youth continued to be reported.

Conclusions

To implement e-screening, clinicians need to change their behaviors, and e-screening processes must become normalized into their workflows. Co-designing and tailoring screening implementation frameworks to meet the needs of specific contexts may be required to ensure that clinicians overcome initial resistances and perceived barriers and adopt the required processes in their work.

SUBMITTER: Martel R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8663603 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWeb-based therapies hold great promise to increase accessibility and reduce costs of delivering mental health care; however, uptake in routine settings has been low.ObjectiveOur objective in this review was to summarize what is known about health care professionals' perceptions of the barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of web-based psychological treatments in routine care of adults in health care settings.MethodsWe searched 5 major databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library) for qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods studies exploring health professionals' views on computer- or internet-based psychological treatment programs. We coded included articles for risk of bias and extracted data using a prepiloted extraction sheet.ResultsWe identified 29 eligible articles: 14 qualitative, 11 quantitative, and 4 mixed methods. We identified the following themes: patient factors, health professional factors, the therapeutic relationship, therapy factors, organizational and system factors, and models of care. Health professionals supported web-based therapies only for patients with relatively straightforward, low-risk diagnoses, strong motivation and engagement, high computer literacy and access, and low need for tailored content. They perceived flexibility with timing and location as advantages of web-based therapy, but preferred blended therapy to facilitate rapport and allow active monitoring and follow-up of patients. They emphasized the need for targeted training and organizational support to manage changed workflows. Health professionals were concerned about the confidentiality and security of client data for web-based programs, suggesting that clear and transparent protocols need to be in place to reassure health professionals before they will be willing to refer.ConclusionsWithout health professionals' support, many people will not access web-based therapies. To increase uptake, it is important to ensure that health professionals receive education, familiarization, and training to support them in incorporating web-based therapies into their practice, and to design systems that support health professionals in this new way of working with patients and addressing their concerns.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42018100869; https://tinyurl.com/y5vaoqsk.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Early detection of cognitive impairment is a goal of high-quality geriatric medical care, but new approaches are needed to reduce rates of missed cases. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether adding routine cognitive screening to primary care visits for older adults increases rates of dementia diagnosis, specialist referral, or prescribing of antidementia medications. SETTING: Four primary care clinics in a university-affiliated primary care network. DESIGN: A quality improvement screening project and quasiexperimental comparison of 2 intervention clinics and 2 control clinics. The Mini-Cog was administered by medical assistants to intervention clinic patients aged 65+ years. Rates of dementia diagnoses, referrals, and medication prescribing were tracked over time using computerized administrative data. RESULTS: Twenty-six medical assistants successfully screened 70% (n = 524) of all eligible patients who made at least 1 clinic visit during the intervention period; 18% screened positive. There were no complaints about workflow interruption. Relative to baseline rates and control clinics, Mini-Cog screening was associated with increased dementia diagnoses, specialist referrals, and prescribing of cognitive enhancing medications. Patients without previous dementia indicators who had a positive Mini-Cog were more likely than all other patients to receive a new dementia diagnosis, specialty referral, or cognitive enhancing medication. However, relevant physician action occurred in only 17% of screen-positive patients. Responses were most related to the lowest Mini-Cog score level (0/5) and advanced age. CONCLUSION: Mini-Cog screening by office staff is feasible in primary care practice and has measurable effects on physician behavior. However, new physician action relevant to dementia was likely to occur only when impairment was severe, and additional efforts are needed to help primary care physicians follow up appropriately on information suggesting cognitive impairment in older patients.

Project description:BackgroundSubstance use disorders, depression and anxiety disproportionately affect people with HIV (PWH) and lead to increased morbidity and mortality. Routine screening can help address these problems but is underutilized. This study sought to describe patient and provider perspectives on the acceptability and usefulness of systematic electronic, self-administered screening for tobacco, alcohol, other substance use, and mental health symptoms among patients in HIV primary care.MethodsScreening used validated instruments delivered pre-appointment by both secure messaging and clinic-based tablets, with results integrated into the electronic health record (EHR). Qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with 9 HIV primary care providers and 12 patients in the 3 largest HIV primary care clinics in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California health system who participated in a clinical trial evaluating computerized screening and behavioral interventions was conducted. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. A thematic approach was utilized for coding and analysis of interview data using a combination of deductive and inductive methods.ResultsFour key themes were identified: (1) perceived clinical benefit of systematic, electronic screening and EHR integration for providers and patients; (2) usefulness of having multiple methods of questionnaire completion; (3) importance of the patient-provider relationship to facilitate completion and accurate reporting; and (4) barriers, include privacy and confidentiality concerns about reporting sensitive information, particularly about substance use, and potential burden from repeated screenings.ConclusionsFindings suggest that electronic, self-administered substance use and mental health screening is acceptable to patients and may have clinical utility to providers. While offering different methods of screening completion can capture a wider range of patients, a strong patient-provider relationship is a key factor in overcoming barriers and ensuring accurate patient responses. Further investigation into facilitators, barriers, and utility of electronic screening for PWH and other high-priority patient populations is indicated. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03217058. Registered 13 July 2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03217058.

Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to evaluate whether prompting general practitioners (GPs) to routinely assess and manage anxiety and depression in patients consulting with osteoarthritis (OA) improves pain outcomes.Methods and findingsWe conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial involving 45 English general practices. In intervention practices, patients aged ≥45 y consulting with OA received point-of-care anxiety and depression screening by the GP, prompted by an automated electronic template comprising five questions (a two-item Patient Health Questionnaire-2 for depression, a two-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2 questionnaire for anxiety, and a question about current pain intensity [0-10 numerical rating scale]). The template signposted GPs to follow National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidelines for anxiety, depression, and OA and was supported by a brief training package. The template in control practices prompted GPs to ask the pain intensity question only. The primary outcome was patient-reported current pain intensity post-consultation and at 3-, 6-, and 12-mo follow-up. Secondary outcomes included pain-related disability, anxiety, depression, and general health. During the trial period, 7,279 patients aged ≥45 y consulted with a relevant OA-related code, and 4,240 patients were deemed potentially eligible by participating GPs. Templates were completed for 2,042 patients (1,339 [31.6%] in the control arm and 703 [23.1%] in the intervention arm). Of these 2,042 patients, 1,412 returned questionnaires (501 [71.3%] from 20 intervention practices, 911 [68.0%] from 24 control practices). Follow-up rates were similar in both arms, totalling 1,093 (77.4%) at 3 mo, 1,064 (75.4%) at 6 mo, and 1,017 (72.0%) at 12 mo. For the primary endpoint, multilevel modelling yielded significantly higher average pain intensity across follow-up to 12 mo in the intervention group than the control group (adjusted mean difference 0.31; 95% CI 0.04, 0.59). Secondary outcomes were consistent with the primary outcome measure in reflecting better outcomes as a whole for the control group than the intervention group. Anxiety and depression scores did not reduce following the intervention. The main limitations of this study are two potential sources of bias: an imbalance in cluster size (mean practice size 7,397 [intervention] versus 5,850 [control]) and a difference in the proportion of patients for whom the GP deactivated the template (33.6% [intervention] versus 27.8% [control]).ConclusionsIn this study, we observed no beneficial effect on pain outcomes of prompting GPs to routinely screen for and manage comorbid anxiety and depression in patients presenting with symptoms due to OA, with those in the intervention group reporting statistically significantly higher average pain scores over the four follow-up time points than those in the control group.Trial registrationISRCTN registry ISRCTN40721988.

Project description:BackgroundMany patients with mental disorders are treated by their general practitioner (GP). Innovative technology-based integrated care models (e.g., mental health specialist video consultations) have been proposed to facilitate access to specialist services in primary care settings. While perspectives of patients and providers have been examined, there is little insight into the perspectives of health policy experts on such models. The purpose of this study was to examine the perspectives of health policy experts on (1) current challenges for continuity of care, (2) anticipated benefits and barriers for implementation of mental health specialist video consultations along with (3) practical and regulative preconditions for sustained implementation in primary care.MethodsIn a cross-sectional qualitative study, we conducted 15 semi-structured interviews with health policy experts representing various stakeholders in the German health care system: health insurances, governmental bodies, clinicians' professional associations, and patient representatives. Following a critical realism approach, we applied a qualitative inductive content analysis to derive key themes from the material.ResultsHealth policy experts saw long waiting times for patients and a lack of collaboration between in- and outpatient mental health services as well as mental health specialists and GPs as main barriers for current continuity of care. Health policy experts also felt that video consultations bear great potential to foster coordinated care between GPs and specialists and ensure timely referral for severely burdened patients. Increased workload for the general practice staff to facilitate video consultations and difficulties in establishing reliable therapeutic alliances between patients and specialists via remote treatment were considered as major barriers. Health policy experts varied significantly in their level of knowledge concerning legal frameworks and regulations pertaining to video consultations. However, the implementation of appropriate reimbursement schemes and sufficient data protection were regarded as the major regulative challenges.ConclusionsHealth policy experts mostly consider mental health specialist video consultations as a promising way to overcome current challenges for the management of patients with mental disorders at the interface between primary and specialist care. To ensure sustained implementation, a multi-stakeholder approach accounting for the perspective of health policy experts, patients, and providers should be followed.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS00012487.