ABSTRACT
Understanding the quality of routine care for adolescent depression constitutes the initial step in designing and implementing improvement strategies. This study assessed depression detection and type and duration of services for adolescents in mental health care settings. Medical record diagnosis and standardized research interview results were compared for youth seeking mental health treatment. The majority of depressed adolescents received care consistent with guidelines and evidence. However, only 51% received appropriate medication; fewer than half received at least 8 sessions of outpatient care or follow-up after hospitalization. Males received significantly fewer components of quality care compared with females. Depression diagnoses in routine care may be facilitated by using structured interviews or questionnaires. Quality monitoring and improvement initiatives may also increase rates of care components that are consistent with guidelines and evidence. Methods tested in this study may facilitate the evaluation of quality improvement initiatives for adolescent depression or other mental health disorders.
Subject(s)
Antidepressive Agents/therapeutic use , Depressive Disorder/diagnosis , Depressive Disorder/drug therapy , Mental Health Services/organization & administration , Quality Assurance, Health Care/organization & administration , Adolescent , Depressive Disorder/ethnology , Dysthymic Disorder/diagnosis , Dysthymic Disorder/drug therapy , Dysthymic Disorder/ethnology , Female , Guideline Adherence , Humans , Male , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Residence Characteristics/statistics & numerical data , Substance-Related Disorders , SuicideABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Adolescents' functional impairment has become increasingly important as a criterion for diagnosis and service eligibility as well as a target of therapeutic intervention in mental health settings. This study examines three critical issues in measuring functioning: 1) agreement between parent and adolescent reports of functioning, 2) explanations for disagreement, and 3) clinicians' ratings of functioning compared with parent and adolescent reports. METHODS: Agreement between parent and adolescent reports of functioning was estimated using the kappa statistic and conditional agreement in a sample of 258 adolescents. Rates of and reasons for expected disagreements between informants were explored in semi-structured interviews (n = 43). ANOVA was calculated for clinician ratings for parent-adolescent pairs categorized on the basis of their agreement or disagreement on impairment. Finally, the independent contribution of parents' or adolescents' reports of impairment on clinician ratings of functioning was examined. RESULTS: From 12% to 97% of problems reported by one informant were denied by the other. Agreement was particularly poor for questions about relationships with friends, peers' delinquent behaviors, and leisure activities. On average, parents and adolescents were more likely to expect the other would agree with their ratings rather than disagree. Reasons for disagreement included: 1) differences in how parents and adolescents interpreted questions; 2) lack of parental awareness of adolescents' behaviors; and 3) different thresholds for what is considered problematic. Results also demonstrated that clinicians perceive problems reported only by parents as somewhat more serious than problems reported only by adolescents. CONCLUSIONS: Implications for diagnosis, treatment planning and outcomes measurement are discussed.
Subject(s)
Adjustment Disorders/psychology , Adolescent , Parents , Social Behavior Disorders/psychology , Adult , Analysis of Variance , Dissent and Disputes , Female , Humans , Male , Observer Variation , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To compare detection rates, service use, and outcomes of substance use disorder (SUD) in adolescents seeking mental health treatment. METHOD: Adolescents (n = 237) and their parents or caregivers completed parallel, self-administered versions of the Adolescent Treatment Outcomes Module (ATOM) at intake and 6-month follow-up. SUD was assessed using the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC). RESULTS: Although 42 (16.6%) adolescents seeking mental health treatment met DISC criteria for any SUD at baseline, clinicians detected only 19 of these (kappa = 0.51). Sensitivity and specificity were high for a screening tool for adolescent SUD (95.2 and 82.0, respectively). Adolescents with undetected SUD were less likely to receive SUD services and to have more legal problems at 6-month follow-up compared to adolescents with detected SUD. CONCLUSIONS: SUD rates may be high in adolescents seeking mental health treatment, confirming the need for routine screening in this population. Results confirm that a large gap exists between the need for and access to SUD treatments, which may contribute to poorer outcomes for all adolescents with SUD.
