Patient Perspectives on Portal-Based Anxiety and Depression Screening in HIV Care: A Qualitative Study Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

Electronic patient portals represent a promising means of integrating mental health assessments into HIV care where anxiety and depression are highly prevalent. Patient attitudes toward portal-based mental health screening within HIV clinics have not been well described. The aim of this formative qualitative study is to characterize the patient-perceived facilitators and barriers to portal-based anxiety and depression screening within HIV care in order to inform implementation strategies for mental health screening. Twelve adult HIV clinic patients participated in semi-structured interviews that were audio recorded and transcribed. The transcripts were coded using constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and analyzed thematically to identify the barriers to and facilitators of portal-based anxiety and depression screening. Facilitators included an absence of alternative screening methods, an approachable design, perceived adaptability, high compatibility with HIV care, the potential for linkage to treatment, an increased self-awareness of mental health conditions, the ability to bundle screening with clinic visits, and communicating an action plan for results. The barriers included difficulty navigating the patient portal system, a lack of technical support, stigmatization from the healthcare system, care team response times, and the novelty of using patient portals for communication. The patients in the HIV clinic viewed the use of a portal-based anxiety and depression screening tool as highly compatible with routine HIV care. Technical difficulties, follow-up concerns, and a fear of stigmatization were commonly perceived as barriers to portal use. The results of this study can be used to inform implementation strategies when designing or incorporating portal-based mental health screening into other HIV care settings.

Population Health Management Approach to Depression Symptom Monitoring in Primary Care via Patient Portal: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Depression is undertreated in primary care. Using patient portals to administer regular symptom assessments could facilitate more timely care. At an urban academic medical center outpatient clinic, patients with active portal accounts and depression on their problem list or a positive screen in the past year were randomized to assessment during triage at visits (usual care) versus usual care plus assessment via portal (population health care). Portal invitations were sent regardless of whether patients had scheduled appointments. More patients completed assessments in the population health care arm than usual care: 59% versus 18%, P < 0.001. Depression symptoms were more common among patients who completed their initial assessment via the portal versus in the clinic. In the population health care arm, 57% (N = 80/140) of patients with moderate-to-severe symptoms completed at least 1 follow-up assessment versus 37% (N = 13/35) in usual care. A portal-based population health approach could improve depression monitoring in primary care.

Pragmatic Clinical Trial of Population Health, Portal-Based Depression Screening: the PORTAL-Depression Study.

BACKGROUND: A population health approach to depression screening using patient portals may be a promising strategy to proactively engage and identify patients with depression. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a population health approach to depression screening is more effective than screening during clinic appointments alone for identifying patients with depression. DESIGN: A pragmatic clinical trial at an adult outpatient internal medicine clinic at an urban, academic, tertiary care center. PATIENTS: Eligible patients (n = 2713) were adults due for depression screening with active portal accounts. Patients with documented depression or bipolar disorder and those who had been screened in the year prior to the study were excluded. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to usual (n = 1372) or population healthcare (n = 1341). For usual care, patients were screened by medical assistants during clinic appointments. Population healthcare patients were sent letters through the portal inviting them to fill out an online screener regardless of whether they had a scheduled appointment. The same screening tool, the Computerized Adaptive Test for Mental Health (CAT-MH™), was used for clinic- and portal-based screening. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the depression screening rate. KEY RESULTS: The depression screening rate in the population healthcare arm was higher than that in the usual care arm (43% (n = 578) vs. 33% (n = 459), p < 0.0001). The rate of positive screens was also higher in the population healthcare arm compared to that in the usual care (10% (n = 58) vs. 4% (n = 17), p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Findings suggest depression screening via a portal as part of a population health approach can increase screening and case identification, compared to usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03832283.

First-Line Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes With Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors and Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists : A Cost-Effectiveness Study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) receptor agonists as second-line therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes. Expanding their use as first-line therapy has been proposed but the clinical benefits may not outweigh their costs. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of a strategy of first-line SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP1 receptor agonists. DESIGN: Individual-level Monte Carlo-based Markov model. DATA SOURCES: Randomized trials, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention databases, RED BOOK, and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. TARGET POPULATION: Drug-naive U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Health care sector. INTERVENTION: First-line SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP1 receptor agonists. OUTCOME MEASURES: Life expectancy, lifetime costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: First-line SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 receptor agonists had lower lifetime rates of congestive heart failure, ischemic heart disease, myocardial infarction, and stroke compared with metformin. First-line SGLT2 inhibitors cost $43 000 more and added 1.8 quality-adjusted months versus first-line metformin ($478 000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]). First-line injectable GLP1 receptor agonists cost more and reduced QALYs compared with metformin. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: By removing injection disutility, first-line GLP1 receptor agonists were no longer dominated (ICER, $327 000 per QALY). Oral GLP1 receptor agonists were not cost-effective (ICER, $823 000 per QALY). To be cost-effective at under $150 000 per QALY, costs for SGLT2 inhibitors would need to be under $5 per day and under $6 per day for oral GLP1 receptor agonists. LIMITATION: U.S. population and costs not generalizable internationally. CONCLUSION: As first-line agents, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 receptor agonists would improve type 2 diabetes outcomes, but their costs would need to fall by at least 70% to be cost-effective. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American Diabetes Association.