Pediatric Provider Processes for Behavioral Health Screening, Decision Making, and Referral in Sites With Colocated Mental Health Services

¶Health Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD.
Journal of developmental and behavioral pediatrics: JDBP (Impact Factor: 2.13). 11/2013; 34(9):680-7. DOI: 10.1097/01.DBP.0000437831.04723.6f
Source: PubMed


Validated behavioral health (BH) screens are recommended for use at well-child visits. This study aimed to explore how pediatricians experience and use these screens for subsequent care decisions in primary care.
The study took place at 4 safety net health centers. Fourteen interviews were conducted with pediatricians who were mandated to use validated BH screens at well-child visits. Interview questions focused on key domains, including clinic BH context, screening processes, assessment of screening scores, and decision making about referral to mental health services. Qualitative analysis used the Framework Approach.
A variety of themes emerged: BH screens were well accepted and valued for the way they facilitated discussion of mental health issues. However, screening results were not always used in the way that instrument designers intended. Providers' beliefs about the face validity of the instruments, and their observations about performance of instruments, led to discounting scored results. As a result, clinical decisions were made based on a variety of evidence, including individual item responses, parent or patient concerns, and perceived readiness for treatment. Additionally, providers, although interested in expanding their mental health discussions, perceived a lack of time and of their own skills to be major obstacles in this pursuit.
Screens act as important prompts to stimulate discussion of BH problems, but their actual scored results play a variable role in problem identification and treatment decisions. Modifications to scheduling policies, additional provider training, and enhanced collaboration with mental health professionals could support better BH integration in pediatric primary care.

7 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To understand how primary care providers (PCPs) perceive barriers to adolescent depression care to inform strategies to increase treatment engagement. We conducted semistructured interviews with 15 PCPs recruited from community pediatric offices with access to integrated behavioral health services (ie, low system-level barriers to care) who participated in a larger study on treating adolescent depression. Interviews addressed PCP perceptions of barriers to adolescents' uptake of care for depression. Interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed, and coded for key themes. Although PCPs mentioned several adolescent barriers to care, they thought parents played a critical role in assisting adolescents in accessing mental health services. Important aspects of the parental role in accessing treatment included transportation, financial support, and social support. PCPs perceived that parental unwillingness to accept the depression diagnosis, family dysfunction, and trauma were common barriers. PCPs contrasted this with examples of good family support they believed would enable adolescents to attend follow-up appointments and have a "life coach" at home to help monitor for side effects and watch for increased suicidality when starting antidepressants. In this PCP population, which had enhanced access to mental health specialists, PCPs primarily reported attitudinal barriers to adolescent depression treatment, focusing mainly on perceived parent barriers. The results of these qualitative interviews provide a framework for understanding PCP perceptions of parental barriers to care, identifying that addressing complex parental barriers to care may be important for future interventions. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    The Journal of pediatrics 07/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.jpeds.2015.05.049 · 3.79 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: While there is a strong case for primary prevention of mental health problems, relatively little mental health scholarship has been devoted to it in the last decade. Efforts to accelerate prevention scholarship could potentially benefit from strengthening pathways for interdisciplinary research; developing new training and working models for mental health professionals; developing a common language for public, policy, and scientific discussion of prevention; learning how to measure the common outcomes of heterogeneous interventions tailored to diverse communities.
    Israel Journal of Health Policy Research 12/2015; 4(1):10. DOI:10.1186/s13584-015-0008-9