The Role of Screening in Depression Diagnosis and Treatment in a Representative Sample of US Primary Care Visits.


Journal

Journal of general internal medicine
ISSN: 1525-1497
Titre abrégé: J Gen Intern Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8605834

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 2020
Historique:
received: 18 05 2018
accepted: 20 05 2019
revised: 28 12 2018
pubmed: 8 8 2019
medline: 15 5 2021
entrez: 8 8 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Primary care providers encounter a large proportion of the population with depression. Yet, many primary care patients with depression remain undiagnosed and untreated. This study aims to examine depression screening patterns and the role of screening in depression diagnosis and treatment in the outpatient primary care setting. This is a cross-sectional analysis of nationally representative survey data of visits to outpatient physician offices from the 2005 to 2015 National Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys. The sample included the first visit in the past year to a primary care provider by patients 12 years and older (N = 16,887). The associations of visit characteristics with depression screening and of depression screening with depression diagnosis and treatment during the visit were assessed using logistic regression. Logistic regression with propensity score weighting was used to estimate the odds of depression diagnosis and treatment under the counterfactual scenario in which patients who visited providers with lower depression screening rates had visited providers with higher screening rates instead. All models were adjusted for patient and visit characteristics. A small proportion of sample visits involved depression screening (3.0%). Visits by patients with depressive symptom complaints were associated with higher odds of depression screening than other visits. When visits were weighted to have similar demographic and clinical characteristics, visits to providers with higher screening rates had higher odds of diagnosis (OR = 1.99, p < 0.001) and treatment (OR = 1.61, p = 0.001) compared to visits to providers with lower screening rates. Physicians appear to use depression screening selectively based on patients' presenting symptoms. Higher screening rates were associated with higher odds of depression diagnosis and treatment, and even modest increases in screening rates could meaningfully increase population-level rates of depression identification and treatment in primary care. Future research is needed to identify barriers to depression care and implement systematic interventions to improve services and patient outcomes.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Primary care providers encounter a large proportion of the population with depression. Yet, many primary care patients with depression remain undiagnosed and untreated.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to examine depression screening patterns and the role of screening in depression diagnosis and treatment in the outpatient primary care setting.
DESIGN
This is a cross-sectional analysis of nationally representative survey data of visits to outpatient physician offices from the 2005 to 2015 National Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys.
PARTICIPANTS
The sample included the first visit in the past year to a primary care provider by patients 12 years and older (N = 16,887).
METHODS
The associations of visit characteristics with depression screening and of depression screening with depression diagnosis and treatment during the visit were assessed using logistic regression. Logistic regression with propensity score weighting was used to estimate the odds of depression diagnosis and treatment under the counterfactual scenario in which patients who visited providers with lower depression screening rates had visited providers with higher screening rates instead. All models were adjusted for patient and visit characteristics.
KEY RESULTS
A small proportion of sample visits involved depression screening (3.0%). Visits by patients with depressive symptom complaints were associated with higher odds of depression screening than other visits. When visits were weighted to have similar demographic and clinical characteristics, visits to providers with higher screening rates had higher odds of diagnosis (OR = 1.99, p < 0.001) and treatment (OR = 1.61, p = 0.001) compared to visits to providers with lower screening rates.
CONCLUSIONS
Physicians appear to use depression screening selectively based on patients' presenting symptoms. Higher screening rates were associated with higher odds of depression diagnosis and treatment, and even modest increases in screening rates could meaningfully increase population-level rates of depression identification and treatment in primary care. Future research is needed to identify barriers to depression care and implement systematic interventions to improve services and patient outcomes.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31388917
doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05192-3
pii: 10.1007/s11606-019-05192-3
pmc: PMC6957618
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

12-20

Subventions

Organisme : NIDA NIH HHS
ID : L30 DA046889
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIDA NIH HHS
ID : T32 DA031099
Pays : United States
Organisme : AHRQ HHS
ID : T32 HS000029
Pays : United States

Références

Pediatrics. 2010 May;125(5):e1097-103
pubmed: 20368315
JAMA. 2002 Jan 9;287(2):203-9
pubmed: 11779262
Health Aff (Millwood). 2011 Aug;30(8):1434-42
pubmed: 21821561
Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2012 Aug;14(4):328-35
pubmed: 22580833
Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2006 May-Jun;28(3):195-204
pubmed: 16675362
J Gen Intern Med. 2008 May;23(5):551-60
pubmed: 18247097
Health Serv Res. 2014 Feb;49(1):284-303
pubmed: 23855598
Lancet. 2009 Aug 22;374(9690):609-19
pubmed: 19640579
Psychiatr Serv. 2018 Oct 1;69(10):1098-1100
pubmed: 29983110
BMC Biophys. 2011 May 31;4:13
pubmed: 21627822
JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Apr;176(4):436-8
pubmed: 26814016
Psychiatr Serv. 2013 Oct;64(10):1068
pubmed: 24081414
Am J Public Health. 2012 Feb;102(2):319-28
pubmed: 22390446
Arch Fam Med. 1994 Apr;3(4):333-7
pubmed: 8012621
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Dec 1;151(11):784-92
pubmed: 19949144
Ann Intern Med. 2016 Mar 1;164(5):342-9
pubmed: 26857836
Vital Health Stat 2. 1979 Feb;(78):i-vi, 1-63
pubmed: 433160
Psychother Psychosom. 2013;82(3):161-9
pubmed: 23548817
Med Care. 2012 Oct;50(10):843-8
pubmed: 22814854
Pediatrics. 2002 Jul;110(1 Pt 1):e8
pubmed: 12093989
BMC Med. 2014 Jan 28;12:13
pubmed: 24472580
Pediatrics. 2016 Mar;137(3):e20154467
pubmed: 26908686
JAMA. 2016 Jan 26;315(4):380-7
pubmed: 26813211
Am J Psychiatry. 2006 Jul;163(7):1187-98
pubmed: 16816223
Psychiatr Serv. 2010 Nov;61(11):1126-31
pubmed: 21041352

Auteurs

Hillary Samples (H)

Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY, USA. h.samples@columbia.edu.

Elizabeth A Stuart (EA)

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Brendan Saloner (B)

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Colleen L Barry (CL)

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Ramin Mojtabai (R)

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH