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.
[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
Note: This list is based on the publications in our database and might not be exhaustive.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.