Collaborative Care to Improve Access and Quality in School-Based Behavioral Health.

BACKGROUND: Collaborative care (CC) is a well-established approach for the delivery of accessible behavioral health services in integrated health care settings. Substantial evidence supports its effectiveness in improving the quality and outcomes of adult services, and growing research indicates utility with child and adolescent populations. METHODS: To date, studies examining CC models for youth have focused exclusively on primary-care settings. Nevertheless, as the most common integrated service delivery setting for youth, the education sector is an equally important context for improving access to behavioral health services for children and adolescents. RESULTS: We provide a narrative review of the literature on CC, describes the relevance of CC to schools, and details its alignment with contemporary movements in education and school-based behavioral health. CONCLUSIONS: Potential adaptations of the CC model for use in schools are detailed to improve: (1) behavioral health service accessibility, (2) the capacity of schools to provide behavioral health services, and (3) school service effectiveness through use of evidence-based practices. Although little research has explored the applicability of CC in the education sector, the model holds potential promise to improve the quality and efficiency of school-based behavioral health services.

Determinants of mental health service use among depressed adolescents.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate determinants of mental health service use among depressed adolescents. METHOD: We assessed mental health services use over the 12 months following screening among 113 adolescents (34 males, 79 females) from an integrated healthcare system who screened positive for depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score ≥11). Youth characteristics (demographics, depression severity, and co-morbidity) and parent characteristics (parent history of depression, parent-report of youth externalizing and internalizing problems) were compared among youth who had received mental health services and those who had not. Multivariate regression was used to evaluate the strongest factors associated with mental health service use. RESULTS: Overall, 52% of adolescents who screened positive for depression received mental health service in the year following screening. Higher parent-reported youth internalizing problems (OR 5.37, CI 1.77-16.35), parental history of depression/anxiety (OR 4.12, CI 1.36-12.48) were significant factors associated with mental health service use. Suicidality and functional impairment were not associated with increased mental health services use. CONCLUSION: Parental factors including recognition of the adolescent's internalizing symptoms and parental experience with depression/anxiety are strongly associated with mental health service use for depressed adolescents. This highlights the importance of educating parents about depression and developing systems to actively screen and engage youth in treatment for depression.

Evaluation of the PHQ-2 as a brief screen for detecting major depression among adolescents.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the validity of the Patient Health Questionnaire 2 (PHQ-2), a 2-item depression-screening scale, among adolescents. METHODS: After completing a brief depression screen, 499 youth (aged 13-17 years) who were enrolled in an integrated health care system were invited to participate in a full assessment, including a longer depression-screening scale (Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item depression screen) and a structured mental health interview (Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children). Eighty-nine percent (n = 444) completed the assessment. Criterion validity and construct validity were tested by examining associations between the PHQ-2 and other measures of depression and functional impairment. RESULTS: A PHQ-2 score of > or =3 had a sensitivity of 74% and specificity of 75% for detecting youth who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, criteria for major depression on the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children and a sensitivity of 96% and specificity of 82% for detecting youth who met criteria for probable major depression on the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item depression screen. On receiver operating characteristic analysis, the PHQ-2 had an area under the curve of 0.84 (95% confidence interval: 0.75-0.92), and a cut point of 3 was optimal for maximizing sensitivity without loss of specificity for detecting major depression. Youth with a PHQ-2 score of > or =3 had significantly higher functional-impairment scores and significantly higher scores for parent-reported internalizing problems than youth with scores of <3. CONCLUSIONS: The PHQ-2 has good sensitivity and specificity for detecting major depression. These properties, coupled with the brief nature of the instrument, make this tool promising as a first step for screening for adolescent depression in primary care.

Factors associated with detection and receipt of treatment for youth with depression and anxiety disorders.

OBJECTIVE: Anxiety and depression are common among youth and are associated with significant morbidity. Few youth with depression are diagnosed and receive treatment for these disorders. The purpose of this study was to examine the rate of recognition and management among an insured population and the factors associated with evidence of detection among youth. METHODS: Structured mental health interviews assessing depression and anxiety diagnoses were completed with a random sample of 581 youth (age range 11-17 years) from an integrated health care system. Administrative data on medical and pharmacy services were used to examine any evidence of detection by the medical system in the prior 12 months. RESULTS: Fifty-one youth met criteria for an anxiety or depressive disorder. Twenty-two percent of these youth with an anxiety or depressive disorder as defined in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition had evidence of detection or treatment. Factors associated with detection and treatment included having diagnosis of a depressive disorder (with or without an anxiety disorder), more depressive symptoms, greater functional impairment, a higher number of primary care visits in the prior year, and higher parent-reported externalizing symptoms. On multivariate analysis, having more depressive symptoms and a higher number of primary care visits were significant predictors of detection and receipt of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of detection and treatment of anxiety and depressive disorders is very low in this age group and suggests a need for increased focus on detection, particularly in light of recent evidence suggesting decreases in diagnosis and treatment among youth following the black box warning regarding antidepressant medications.