PURPOSE The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening for depression in the general adult population. Although screening questionnaires for depression and anxiety exist in primary care settings, electronic health tools such as computerized adaptive tests based on item response theory can advance screening practices. This study evaluated the validity of the Computerized Adaptive Test for Mental Health (CAT-MH) for screening for major depressive disorder (MDD) and assessing MDD and anxiety severity among adult primary care patients. METHODS We approached 402 English-speaking adults for participation from a primary care clinic, of whom 271 adults (71% female, 65% black) participated. Participants completed modules from the CAT-MH (Computerized Adaptive Diagnostic Test for MDD, CAT-Depression Inventory, CAT-Anxiety Inventory); brief paper questionnaires (9-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9], 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-2], Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item Scale [GAD-7]); and a reference-standard interview, the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition) Diagnoses. RESULTS On the basis of the interview, 31 participants met criteria for MDD and 29 met criteria for GAD. The diagnostic accuracy of the Computerized Adaptive Diagnostic Test for MDD (area under curve [AUC] = 0.85) was similar to that of the PHQ-9 (AUC = 0.84) and higher than that of the PHQ-2 (AUC = 0.76) for MDD screening. Using the interview as the reference standard, the accuracy of the CAT-Anxiety Inventory (AUC = 0.93) was similar to that of the GAD-7 (AUC = 0.97) for assessing anxiety severity. The patient-preferred screening method was assessment via tablet/computer with audio. CONCLUSIONS Computerized adaptive testing could be a valid and efficient patient-centered screening strategy for depression and anxiety screening in primary care settings.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Diabetes group visits (GVs) are a promising way to deliver high quality care but have been understudied in community health centers (CHCs), across multiple sites, or with a focus on patient-centered outcomes. Methods We trained staff and healthcare providers from six CHCs across five Midwestern states to implement a 6-month GV program at their sites. We assessed the impact of diabetes GVs on patient clinical and self-reported outcomes and processes of care compared to patients receiving usual care at these sites during the same period using a prospective controlled study design. Results CHCs enrolled 51 adult patients with diabetes with glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C) ≥ 8% for the GV intervention and conducted chart review of 72 patients receiving usual care. We analyzed A1C at baseline, 6, and 12 months, low-density lipoproteins (LDL), blood pressure, and patient-reported outcomes. GV patients had a larger decrease in A1C from baseline to 6 months (-1.04%, 95% CI: -1.64, -0.44) and 12 months (-1.76, 95% CI: -2.44, -1.07) compared to usual care; there was no change in blood pressure or LDL. GV patients had higher odds of receiving a flu vaccination, foot exam, eye exam, and lipid panel in the past year compared to usual care but not a dental exam, urine microalbumin test, or blood pressure check. For GV patients, diabetes distress decreased, diabetes-related quality of life improved, and self-reported frequency of healthy eating and checking blood sugar increased from baseline to 6 months, but there was no change in exercise or medication adherence. Conclusions A diabetes GV intervention improved blood glucose levels, self-care behaviors, diabetes distress, and processes of care among adults with elevated A1Cs compared to patients receiving usual care. Future studies are needed to assess the sustainability of clinical improvements and costs of the GV model in CHCs.

Provider- and staff-perceived levels of integration were measured during implementation of a primary care behavioral health clinic; these data were used to tailor and evaluate quality improvement strategies. Providers and staff at an urban, academic, adult primary care clinic completed the 32-item Level of Integration Measure (LIM) at baseline and 7 months. The LIM assesses 6 domains of integrated care. Overall and domain scores were calibrated from 0 to 100, with ≥80 representing a highly integrated clinic. Response rate was 79% (N = 46/58) at baseline and 83% (N = 52/63) at follow-up. Overall, LIM score increased from 64.5 to 70.1, P = .001. The lowest scoring domains at baseline were targeted for quality improvement and increased significantly: integrated clinical practice, 60.0 versus 68.4, P < .001; systems integration, 57.0 versus 63.8, P = .001; and training, 56.7 versus 65.3, P = .001. Ongoing quality improvement, including organizational and financial strategies, is needed to achieve higher levels of integration.