Assessing for suicidal behavior in youth using the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment.

This study investigated the clinical utility of the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA) for identifying youth at risk for suicide. Specifically, we investigated how well the Total Problems scores and the sum of two suicide-related items (#18 "Deliberately harms self or attempts suicide" and #91 "Talks about killing self") were able to distinguish youth with a history of suicidal behavior. Youth (N = 1117) aged 5-18 were recruited for two studies of mental illness. History of suicidal behavior was assessed by semi-structured interviews (K-SADS) with youth and caregivers. Youth, caregivers, and a primary teacher each completed the appropriate form (YSR, CBCL, and TRF, respectively) of the ASEBA. Areas under the curve (AUCs) from ROC analyses and diagnostic likelihood ratios (DLRs) were used to measure the ability of both Total Problems T scores, as well as the summed score of two suicide-related items, to identify youth with a history of suicidal behavior. The Suicide Items from the CBCL and YSR performed well (AUCs = 0.85 and 0.70, respectively). The TRF Suicide Items did not perform better than chance, AUC = 0.45. The AUCs for the Total Problems scores were poor-to-fair (0.33-0.65). The CBCL Suicide Items outperformed all other scores (ps = 0.04 to <0.0005). Combining the CBCL and YSR items did not lead to incremental improvement in prediction over the CBCL alone. The sum of two questions from a commonly used assessment tool can offer important information about a youth's risk for suicidal behavior. The low burden of this approach could facilitate wide-spread screening for suicide in an increasingly at-risk population.

Cost-effectiveness of prolonged exposure therapy versus pharmacotherapy and treatment choice in posttraumatic stress disorder (the Optimizing PTSD Treatment Trial): a doubly randomized preference trial.

OBJECTIVE: Cost-effectiveness of treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) may depend on type of treatment (eg, pharmacotherapy vs psychotherapy) and patient choice of treatment. We examined the cost-effectiveness of treatment with prolonged exposure therapy versus pharmacotherapy with sertraline, overall treatment preference, preference for choosing prolonged exposure therapy, and preference for choosing pharmacotherapy with sertraline from the US societal perspective. METHOD: Two hundred patients aged 18 to 65 years with PTSD diagnosis based on DSM-IV criteria enrolled in a doubly randomized preference trial. Patients were randomized to receive their treatment of choice (n = 97) or to be randomly assigned treatment (n = 103). In the choice arm, patients chose either prolonged exposure therapy (n = 61) or pharmacotherapy with sertraline (n = 36). In the no-choice arm, patients were randomized to either prolonged exposure therapy (n = 48) or pharmacotherapy with sertraline (n = 55). The total costs, including direct medical costs, direct nonmedical costs, and indirect costs, were estimated in 2012 US dollars; and total quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was assessed using the EuroQoL Questionnaire-5 dimensions (EQ-5D) instrument in a 12-month period. This study was conducted from July 2004 to January 2009. RESULTS: Relative to pharmacotherapy with sertraline, prolonged exposure therapy was less costly (-$262; 95% CI, -$5,068 to $4,946) and produced more QALYs (0.056; 95% CI, 0.014 to 0.100) when treatment was assigned, with 93.2% probability of being cost-effective at $100,000/QALY. Independently, giving a choice of treatment also yielded lower cost (-$1,826; 95% CI, -$4,634 to $749) and more QALYs (0.010; 95% CI, -0.019 to 0.044) over no choice of treatment, with 87.0% probability of cost-effectiveness at $100,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Giving PTSD patients a choice of treatment appears to be cost-effective. When choice is not possible, prolonged exposure therapy may provide a cost-effective option over pharmacotherapy with sertraline. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00127673.

Generalizability of evidence-based assessment recommendations for pediatric bipolar disorder.

Bipolar disorder is frequently clinically diagnosed in youths who do not actually satisfy Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text revision; DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) criteria, yet cases that would satisfy full DSM-IV-TR criteria are often undetected clinically. Evidence-based assessment methods that incorporate Bayesian reasoning have demonstrated improved diagnostic accuracy and consistency; however, their clinical utility is largely unexplored. The present study examines the effectiveness of promising evidence-based decision-making strategies compared with the clinical gold standard. Participants were 562 youths, ages 5 to 17 and predominantly African American, drawn from a community mental health clinic. Research diagnoses combined a semistructured interview with youths' psychiatric, developmental, and family mental health histories. Independent Bayesian estimates that relied on published risk estimates from other samples discriminated bipolar diagnoses (area under curve = .75, p < .00005). The Bayes and confidence ratings correlated at rs = .30. Agreement about an evidence-based assessment intervention threshold model (wait/assess/treat) was κ = .24, p < .05. No potential moderators of agreement between the Bayesian estimates and confidence ratings, including type of bipolar illness, were significant. Bayesian risk estimates were highly correlated with logistic regression estimates using optimal sample weights (r = .81, p < .0005). Clinical and Bayesian approaches agree in terms of overall concordance and deciding next clinical action, even when Bayesian predictions are based on published estimates from clinically and demographically different samples. Evidence-based assessment methods may be useful in settings in which gold standard assessments cannot be routinely used, and they may help decrease rates of overdiagnosis while promoting earlier identification of true cases.

Service use and costs of care for depressed adolescents: who uses and who pays?

Major depressive disorder is common in adolescence and is associated with significant morbidity and family burden. Little is known about service use by depressed adolescents. The purpose of this article is to report the patterns of services use and costs for participants in the Treatment for Adolescents with Depression Study sample during the 3 months before randomization. Costs were assigned across three categories of payors: families, private insurance, and the public sector. We examined whether costs from payors varied by baseline covariates, such as age, gender, insurance status, and family income. The majority (71%) of depressed youth sought services during the 3-month period. Slightly more than one-fifth had contact with a behavioral health specialist. The average participant had just under $300 (SD = $437.67, range = $0-$3,747.71) in treatment-related costs, with most of these costs borne by families and private insurers.