一个大型综合医疗系统的初级保健医生对使用标准化工具筛查和评估焦虑、抑郁和情绪失调症的认识和行为。

IF 3 Q1 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
Abdul Waheed, Asif Khan Afridi, Masooma Rana, Mobeena Arif, Trajan Barrera, Feroza Patel, Muhammad Nausherwan Khan, Erum Azhar
{"title":"一个大型综合医疗系统的初级保健医生对使用标准化工具筛查和评估焦虑、抑郁和情绪失调症的认识和行为。","authors":"Abdul Waheed, Asif Khan Afridi, Masooma Rana, Mobeena Arif, Trajan Barrera, Feroza Patel, Muhammad Nausherwan Khan, Erum Azhar","doi":"10.1177/21501319231224711","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Standardized screening, objective evaluation, and management of behavioral health conditions are major challenges in primary care. The Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), and Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ) provide standardized screening and symptom management tools for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), major depressive disorder (MDD), and Mood Disorders (MD), respectively. This study explores family physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding the utilization of GAD-7, PHQ-9, and MDQ in outpatient primary care offices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study method was a cross-sectional electronic and paper survey utilizing a self-administered questionnaire that assessed primary care physicians' demographics, knowledge, attitudes, and practices in rural and urban outpatient clinical settings regarding GAD-7, PHQ-9, and MDQ. Statistical software SAS 9.4 was used for descriptive and Chi-Square statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 320 total participants,145 responded (45.3%). Responding family physicians demonstrated a high level of familiarity with the GAD-7 (97.9%), PHQ-9 (97.9%), and MDQ (81.3%) assessment tools. However, the reported utilization rates were relatively lower than knowledge, with 62.7%, 73.1%, and 31.9% extremely likely or likely to utilize the GAD-7, PHQ-9, and MDQ as screening and monitoring tools, respectively. Less than a quarter of the total respondents use the objective score for the future management of GAD, with significantly more residents utilizing the score for GAD-7 compared to attendings (<i>P</i> < .05). There was no statistical significance difference between residents and attendings for the objective evaluation of Major Depressive Disorder (<i>P</i> = .26) and Mood Disorders (<i>P</i> = .05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite being knowledgeable of the utility of GAD-7, PHQ-9, and MDQ, the primary care physicians in a large integrated health system in Central Pennsylvania and Northern Maryland report inconsistent utilization in their practice. Further studies are needed to determine the underlying factors contributing to the suboptimal usage of these screening tools and ways to increase it.</p>","PeriodicalId":46723,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Primary Care and Community Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10851721/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Knowledge and Behavior of Primary Care Physicians Regarding Utilization of Standardized Tools in Screening and Assessment of Anxiety, Depression, and Mood Disorders at a Large Integrated Health System.\",\"authors\":\"Abdul Waheed, Asif Khan Afridi, Masooma Rana, Mobeena Arif, Trajan Barrera, Feroza Patel, Muhammad Nausherwan Khan, Erum Azhar\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/21501319231224711\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Standardized screening, objective evaluation, and management of behavioral health conditions are major challenges in primary care. The Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), and Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ) provide standardized screening and symptom management tools for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), major depressive disorder (MDD), and Mood Disorders (MD), respectively. This study explores family physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding the utilization of GAD-7, PHQ-9, and MDQ in outpatient primary care offices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study method was a cross-sectional electronic and paper survey utilizing a self-administered questionnaire that assessed primary care physicians' demographics, knowledge, attitudes, and practices in rural and urban outpatient clinical settings regarding GAD-7, PHQ-9, and MDQ. Statistical software SAS 9.4 was used for descriptive and Chi-Square statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 320 total participants,145 responded (45.3%). Responding family physicians demonstrated a high level of familiarity with the GAD-7 (97.9%), PHQ-9 (97.9%), and MDQ (81.3%) assessment tools. However, the reported utilization rates were relatively lower than knowledge, with 62.7%, 73.1%, and 31.9% extremely likely or likely to utilize the GAD-7, PHQ-9, and MDQ as screening and monitoring tools, respectively. Less than a quarter of the total respondents use the objective score for the future management of GAD, with significantly more residents utilizing the score for GAD-7 compared to attendings (<i>P</i> < .05). There was no statistical significance difference between residents and attendings for the objective evaluation of Major Depressive Disorder (<i>P</i> = .26) and Mood Disorders (<i>P</i> = .05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite being knowledgeable of the utility of GAD-7, PHQ-9, and MDQ, the primary care physicians in a large integrated health system in Central Pennsylvania and Northern Maryland report inconsistent utilization in their practice. Further studies are needed to determine the underlying factors contributing to the suboptimal usage of these screening tools and ways to increase it.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46723,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Primary Care and Community Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10851721/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Primary Care and Community Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/21501319231224711\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Primary Care and Community Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21501319231224711","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:行为健康状况的标准化筛查、客观评估和管理是初级保健的主要挑战。广泛性焦虑症量表(GAD-7)、患者健康问卷(PHQ-9)和情绪障碍问卷(MDQ)分别为广泛性焦虑症(GAD)、重度抑郁障碍(MDD)和情绪障碍(MD)提供了标准化的筛查和症状管理工具。本研究探讨了家庭医生在门诊初级保健诊所使用 GAD-7、PHQ-9 和 MDQ 的相关知识、态度和做法:研究方法:采用自制问卷进行横断面电子和纸质调查,评估农村和城市门诊临床环境中全科医师对 GAD-7、PHQ-9 和 MDQ 的人口统计学特征、知识、态度和实践。统计软件 SAS 9.4 用于描述性统计和齐次方统计:在 320 位参与者中,有 145 位(45.3%)做出了回应。回复的家庭医生对 GAD-7 (97.9%)、PHQ-9 (97.9%) 和 MDQ (81.3%) 评估工具的熟悉程度较高。然而,报告的使用率相对低于了解率,分别有 62.7%、73.1% 和 31.9% 的受访者极有可能或可能使用 GAD-7、PHQ-9 和 MDQ 作为筛查和监测工具。在所有受访者中,只有不到四分之一的人将客观评分用于 GAD 的未来管理,与主治医师(P P = .26)和情绪障碍(P = .05)相比,使用 GAD-7 评分的住院医师明显更多:结论:尽管了解 GAD-7、PHQ-9 和 MDQ 的效用,但宾夕法尼亚州中部和马里兰州北部一个大型综合医疗系统的初级保健医生报告说,他们在实践中的使用率并不一致。需要进一步研究以确定导致这些筛查工具使用率不理想的根本原因以及提高使用率的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Knowledge and Behavior of Primary Care Physicians Regarding Utilization of Standardized Tools in Screening and Assessment of Anxiety, Depression, and Mood Disorders at a Large Integrated Health System.

Introduction: Standardized screening, objective evaluation, and management of behavioral health conditions are major challenges in primary care. The Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), and Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ) provide standardized screening and symptom management tools for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), major depressive disorder (MDD), and Mood Disorders (MD), respectively. This study explores family physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding the utilization of GAD-7, PHQ-9, and MDQ in outpatient primary care offices.

Methods: The study method was a cross-sectional electronic and paper survey utilizing a self-administered questionnaire that assessed primary care physicians' demographics, knowledge, attitudes, and practices in rural and urban outpatient clinical settings regarding GAD-7, PHQ-9, and MDQ. Statistical software SAS 9.4 was used for descriptive and Chi-Square statistics.

Results: Out of 320 total participants,145 responded (45.3%). Responding family physicians demonstrated a high level of familiarity with the GAD-7 (97.9%), PHQ-9 (97.9%), and MDQ (81.3%) assessment tools. However, the reported utilization rates were relatively lower than knowledge, with 62.7%, 73.1%, and 31.9% extremely likely or likely to utilize the GAD-7, PHQ-9, and MDQ as screening and monitoring tools, respectively. Less than a quarter of the total respondents use the objective score for the future management of GAD, with significantly more residents utilizing the score for GAD-7 compared to attendings (P < .05). There was no statistical significance difference between residents and attendings for the objective evaluation of Major Depressive Disorder (P = .26) and Mood Disorders (P = .05).

Conclusions: Despite being knowledgeable of the utility of GAD-7, PHQ-9, and MDQ, the primary care physicians in a large integrated health system in Central Pennsylvania and Northern Maryland report inconsistent utilization in their practice. Further studies are needed to determine the underlying factors contributing to the suboptimal usage of these screening tools and ways to increase it.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
2.80%
发文量
183
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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