Depression screening perceptions and practices in a primary care clinic: A mixed-methods study.

IF 1.9 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Psychological Services Pub Date : 2023-11-01 Epub Date: 2023-02-23 DOI:10.1037/ser0000753
Nataliya Pilipenko, Christian Vivar-Ramon
{"title":"Depression screening perceptions and practices in a primary care clinic: A mixed-methods study.","authors":"Nataliya Pilipenko,&nbsp;Christian Vivar-Ramon","doi":"10.1037/ser0000753","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Depression is highly prevalent in primary care (PC) settings. While extensive efforts are directed at optimization of depression screening practices, rates remain suboptimal, and barriers continue to be poorly understood. The present study investigated screening-related practices and beliefs. A concurrent mixed-methods approach was utilized to obtain both quantitative and qualitative data. Participants (<i>N</i> = 36) completed a self-report survey and a brief semistructured interview to assess attitudes toward depression screening, knowledge/beliefs about screening, as well as administration practices and screening-related training. Despite low rates of training (52.8%), participants endorsed understanding of the purpose, scope, and specialty populations targeted for screening. 83.3% of the sample assisted patients with screening completion. Rephrasing and reading the screening items were common and (with exception of reading the paper form) were associated with higher reported screening-related barriers (<i>p</i> < .05). Perceived importance of screening scores was significantly, positively associated with screening-related competence scores (<i>r</i> = .50, <i>n</i> = 35, <i>p</i> < .01). Qualitative data analysis revealed that screening may be conducted on a case-by-case basis or deferred based on perception of clinical relevance and time constraints. Finally, participants endorsed multiple screening-related questions and concerns about administration, psychometrics, and overarching screening goals. To improve implementation of universal depression screening, goals of depression screening need to be clearly explained. Screening workflows require optimization balancing employees' feedback and best practice recommendations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20749,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Services","volume":" ","pages":"756-763"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Services","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000753","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Depression is highly prevalent in primary care (PC) settings. While extensive efforts are directed at optimization of depression screening practices, rates remain suboptimal, and barriers continue to be poorly understood. The present study investigated screening-related practices and beliefs. A concurrent mixed-methods approach was utilized to obtain both quantitative and qualitative data. Participants (N = 36) completed a self-report survey and a brief semistructured interview to assess attitudes toward depression screening, knowledge/beliefs about screening, as well as administration practices and screening-related training. Despite low rates of training (52.8%), participants endorsed understanding of the purpose, scope, and specialty populations targeted for screening. 83.3% of the sample assisted patients with screening completion. Rephrasing and reading the screening items were common and (with exception of reading the paper form) were associated with higher reported screening-related barriers (p < .05). Perceived importance of screening scores was significantly, positively associated with screening-related competence scores (r = .50, n = 35, p < .01). Qualitative data analysis revealed that screening may be conducted on a case-by-case basis or deferred based on perception of clinical relevance and time constraints. Finally, participants endorsed multiple screening-related questions and concerns about administration, psychometrics, and overarching screening goals. To improve implementation of universal depression screening, goals of depression screening need to be clearly explained. Screening workflows require optimization balancing employees' feedback and best practice recommendations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

初级保健诊所的抑郁症筛查观念和实践:一项混合方法研究。
抑郁症在初级保健(PC)环境中非常普遍。尽管在抑郁症筛查实践的优化方面做出了广泛的努力,但发病率仍然不理想,对障碍的理解仍然很差。本研究调查了筛查相关的实践和信念。同时采用混合方法获得定量和定性数据。参与者(N=36)完成了一项自我报告调查和一次简短的半结构化访谈,以评估对抑郁症筛查的态度、对筛查的知识/信念,以及管理实践和筛查相关培训。尽管培训率较低(52.8%),但参与者认可对筛查目的、范围和专业人群的理解。83.3%的样本帮助患者完成了筛查。复述和阅读筛查项目很常见,(阅读纸质表格除外)与报告的筛查相关障碍较高有关(p<0.05),与筛查相关能力得分呈正相关(r=.50,n=35,p<0.01)。定性数据分析显示,筛查可以根据具体情况进行,也可以根据临床相关性和时间限制的感知推迟。最后,参与者认可了关于管理、心理测量和总体筛查目标的多个筛查相关问题和担忧。为了提高普遍抑郁症筛查的实施率,需要明确解释抑郁症筛查的目标。筛选工作流程需要优化,以平衡员工的反馈和最佳实践建议。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Psychological Services
Psychological Services PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
13.00%
发文量
216
期刊介绍: Psychological Services publishes high-quality data-based articles on the broad range of psychological services. While the Division"s focus is on psychologists in "public service," usually defined as being employed by a governmental agency, Psychological Services covers the full range of psychological services provided in any service delivery setting. Psychological Services encourages submission of papers that focus on broad issues related to psychotherapy outcomes, evaluations of psychological service programs and systems, and public policy analyses.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信