A pilot study of participatory and rapid implementation approaches to increase depression screening in primary care.
Depression screening
Implementation strategy design
Participatory research
Primary care
Rapid implementation
Journal
BMC family practice
ISSN: 1471-2296
Titre abrégé: BMC Fam Pract
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967792
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 11 2021
16 11 2021
Historique:
received:
15
06
2021
accepted:
24
09
2021
entrez:
17
11
2021
pubmed:
18
11
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Most individuals with depression go unidentified and untreated. In 2016 the US Preventive Services Task Force released guidelines recommending universal screening in primary care to identify patients with depression and to link them to treatment. Feasible, acceptable, and effective strategies to implement these guidelines are needed. This three-phased study employed rapid participatory methods to design and test strategies to increase depression screening at Penn Medicine, a large health system with 90 primary care practices. First, researchers solicited ideas and barriers from stakeholders to increase screening using an innovation tournament-a crowdsourcing method that invites stakeholders to submit ideas to address a workplace challenge. Second, a panel of stakeholders and scientists deliberated over and ranked the tournament ideas. An instant runoff election was held to select the winning idea. Third, the research team piloted the winning idea in a primary care practice using rapid prototyping, an approach that quickly refines and iterates strategy designs. The innovation tournament yielded 31 ideas and 32 barriers from diverse stakeholders (12 primary care physicians, 10 medical assistants, 4 nurse practitioners, 2 practice managers, and 4 patient support assistants). A panel of 6 stakeholders and scientists deliberated on the ideas and voted for patient self-report (i.e., through tablet computers, text message, or an online patient portal) as the winning idea. The research team rapid prototyped tablets in one primary care practice with one physician over 5 five-hour shifts to examine the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of the strategy. Most patients, the physician, and medical assistants found the tablets acceptable and feasible. However, patient support assistants struggled to incorporate them in their workflow and expressed concerns about scaling up the process. Depression screening rates were higher using tablets compared to usual care; follow-up was comparable between tablets and usual care. Rapid participatory methods engaged and amplified the voices of diverse stakeholders in primary care. These methods helped design an acceptable and feasible implementation strategy that showed promise for increasing depression screening in a primary care setting. The next step is to evaluate the strategy in a randomized controlled trial across primary care practices.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Most individuals with depression go unidentified and untreated. In 2016 the US Preventive Services Task Force released guidelines recommending universal screening in primary care to identify patients with depression and to link them to treatment. Feasible, acceptable, and effective strategies to implement these guidelines are needed.
METHODS
This three-phased study employed rapid participatory methods to design and test strategies to increase depression screening at Penn Medicine, a large health system with 90 primary care practices. First, researchers solicited ideas and barriers from stakeholders to increase screening using an innovation tournament-a crowdsourcing method that invites stakeholders to submit ideas to address a workplace challenge. Second, a panel of stakeholders and scientists deliberated over and ranked the tournament ideas. An instant runoff election was held to select the winning idea. Third, the research team piloted the winning idea in a primary care practice using rapid prototyping, an approach that quickly refines and iterates strategy designs.
RESULTS
The innovation tournament yielded 31 ideas and 32 barriers from diverse stakeholders (12 primary care physicians, 10 medical assistants, 4 nurse practitioners, 2 practice managers, and 4 patient support assistants). A panel of 6 stakeholders and scientists deliberated on the ideas and voted for patient self-report (i.e., through tablet computers, text message, or an online patient portal) as the winning idea. The research team rapid prototyped tablets in one primary care practice with one physician over 5 five-hour shifts to examine the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of the strategy. Most patients, the physician, and medical assistants found the tablets acceptable and feasible. However, patient support assistants struggled to incorporate them in their workflow and expressed concerns about scaling up the process. Depression screening rates were higher using tablets compared to usual care; follow-up was comparable between tablets and usual care.
CONCLUSIONS
Rapid participatory methods engaged and amplified the voices of diverse stakeholders in primary care. These methods helped design an acceptable and feasible implementation strategy that showed promise for increasing depression screening in a primary care setting. The next step is to evaluate the strategy in a randomized controlled trial across primary care practices.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34784899
doi: 10.1186/s12875-021-01550-5
pii: 10.1186/s12875-021-01550-5
pmc: PMC8593851
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
228Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 19;381(12):1175-1179
pubmed: 31532967
N Engl J Med. 2010 Dec 30;363(27):2611-20
pubmed: 21190455
Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2018 May 02;2(2):99-102
pubmed: 30225439
BMJ Open. 2021 Mar 18;11(3):e042361
pubmed: 33737425
BMC Fam Pract. 2016 Jun 02;17:62
pubmed: 27250527
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Sep 1;3(9):e2019686
pubmed: 32876685
Psychiatr Serv. 2018 Aug 1;69(8):927-934
pubmed: 29962307
Addict Behav. 2002 Nov-Dec;27(6):989-93
pubmed: 12369480
Aging Ment Health. 2020 Feb;24(2):341-348
pubmed: 30588845
J Pediatr Health Care. 2021 May-Jun;35(3):270-277
pubmed: 33581996
Soc Sci Med. 2013 Nov;97:82-6
pubmed: 24161092
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Dec 1;151(11):784-92
pubmed: 19949144
Nat Rev Cardiol. 2017 Mar;14(3):145-155
pubmed: 27853162
Am J Psychiatry. 2004 Sep;161(9):1626-34
pubmed: 15337653
Sci Rep. 2018 Feb 12;8(1):2861
pubmed: 29434331
J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2021 Sep;28(3):584-595
pubmed: 33113042
J Gen Intern Med. 2020 Nov;35(11):3141-3147
pubmed: 32495093
Fam Med. 2001 Jan;33(1):22-7
pubmed: 11199905
Psychiatr Serv. 2017 Jul 1;68(7):660-666
pubmed: 28196461
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2019 Mar;46(2):255-270
pubmed: 30488143
Pediatr Emerg Care. 2019 Jul;35(7):480-486
pubmed: 27741071
BMJ Open. 2021 Jul 12;11(7):e048801
pubmed: 34253672
Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2019 Oct;33(5):63-67
pubmed: 31711596
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005 Jun;62(6):617-27
pubmed: 15939839
BMJ Qual Saf. 2014 Apr;23(4):290-8
pubmed: 24025320
Prim Care. 2012 Jun;39(2):415-31
pubmed: 22608874
Acad Pediatr. 2019 Nov - Dec;19(8):925-933
pubmed: 30858080
J Psychosom Res. 2005 Feb;58(2):163-71
pubmed: 15820844
Implement Sci. 2020 Aug 6;15(1):62
pubmed: 32762726
Ann Fam Med. 2021 Mar-Apr;19(2):148-156
pubmed: 33685876
J Gen Intern Med. 2018 Aug;33(8):1283-1291
pubmed: 29423624
N Engl J Med. 2015 Aug 13;373(7):592-4
pubmed: 26267619
Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2012 Mar;35(1):1-14
pubmed: 22370487
Clin Psychol Rev. 2010 Feb;30(1):25-36
pubmed: 19766369
J Appl Behav Anal. 1981 Summer;14(2):131-40
pubmed: 7287597
Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2011;13(1):7-23
pubmed: 21485743
Psychosom Med. 2006 Mar-Apr;68(2):262-8
pubmed: 16554392
Soc Sci Med. 2017 Apr;179:147-159
pubmed: 28279924
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Apr 9;23(4):e16651
pubmed: 33835035
Manag Care. 2004 Jun;13(6 Suppl Depression):6-8
pubmed: 15293765
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2008 Dec;76(6):909-22
pubmed: 19045960
Am J Med Qual. 2020 Jul/Aug;35(4):315-322
pubmed: 31701768
Harv Bus Rev. 2001 Feb;79(2):66-75
pubmed: 11213699
NCHS Data Brief. 2018 Feb;(303):1-8
pubmed: 29638213
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 May 21;20(1):449
pubmed: 32438909
Psychol Med. 2018 Jun;48(8):1308-1315
pubmed: 29021005
Arch Intern Med. 2000 Jul 24;160(14):2101-7
pubmed: 10904452
Med Hypotheses. 2004;62(6):976-9
pubmed: 15142660
JAMA. 2016 Jan 26;315(4):380-7
pubmed: 26813211
Psychiatr Serv. 2017 Jul 1;68(7):724-726
pubmed: 28292224
Ann Fam Med. 2007 Mar-Apr;5(2):126-34
pubmed: 17389536
BMJ. 2014 Feb 04;348:g1253
pubmed: 24496211
Implement Sci. 2019 Jun 14;14(1):63
pubmed: 31200730
Br J Psychiatry. 2006 Dec;189:484-93
pubmed: 17139031
Int J Qual Health Care. 2019 Feb 01;31(1):57-63
pubmed: 29982702
Am J Manag Care. 2008 Feb;14(2):95-100
pubmed: 18269305
J Gen Intern Med. 2020 Jan;35(1):12-20
pubmed: 31388917
JAMA. 2002 Dec 11;288(22):2836-45
pubmed: 12472325
Nord J Psychiatry. 2011 Dec;65(6):354-64
pubmed: 21770842
Fam Pract. 2016 Dec;33(6):649-655
pubmed: 27535330
Healthc (Amst). 2013 Jun;1(1-2):37-41
pubmed: 26249638
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Jan 10;17(1):20
pubmed: 28069047
Hum Resour Health. 2015 Jul 07;13:55
pubmed: 26149447
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Dec 1;151(11):793-803
pubmed: 19949145
Fam Syst Health. 2017 Sep;35(3):391
pubmed: 28945454
J Behav Med. 2014 Aug;37(4):768-80
pubmed: 23934180
J Affect Disord. 2009 Dec;119(1-3):52-8
pubmed: 19361865