The Prevalence of Periodontitis Among US Adults with Multimorbidity Using NHANES Data 2011-2014.

INTRODUCTION: Often misperceived as solely a dental disease, periodontitis is a chronic condition characterized by inflammation of the support structures of the tooth and associated with chronic systemic inflammation and endothelial dysfunction. Despite affecting almost 40% of US adults 30 years of age or older, periodontitis is rarely considered when quantifying the multimorbidity (the presence of 2 or more chronic conditions in an individual) burden for our patients. Multimorbidity represents a major challenge for primary care and is associated with increasing health care expenditure and increased hospitalizations. We hypothesized that periodontitis was associated with multimorbidity. METHODS: To interrogate our hypothesis, we performed a secondary data analysis of a population-based cross-sectional survey, the NHANES 2011 to 2014 dataset. The study population included US adults aged 30 years or older who underwent a periodontal examination. Prevalence of periodontitis in individuals with and without multimorbidity was calculated using likelihood estimates and adjusting for confounding variables with logistic regression models. RESULTS: Individuals with multimorbidity were more likely than the general population and individuals without multimorbidity to have periodontitis. However, in adjusted analyses, there was no independent association between periodontitis and multimorbidity. Given the absence of an association, we included periodontitis as a qualifying condition for the diagnosis of multimorbidity. As a result, the prevalence of multimorbidity in US adults 30 years and older increased from 54.1% to 65.8%. DISCUSSION: Periodontitis is a highly prevalent, preventable chronic inflammatory condition. It shares many common risk factors with multimorbidity but was not independently associated with multimorbidity in our study. Further research is required to understand these observations and whether treating periodontitis in patients with multimorbidity may improve health care outcomes.

Controlling Hypertension through Education and Coaching in Kidney Disease (CHECK-D): protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects 30 million Americans. Early management focused on blood pressure (BP) control decreases cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Less than 40% of patients with CKD achieve recommended BP targets due to many barriers. These barriers include a lack of understanding of the implications of their diagnosis and how to optimise their health.This cluster randomised control trial hypothesises that the combination of early primary care CKD education, and motivational interviewing (MI)-based health coach support, will improve patient behaviours aligned with BP control by increasing patient knowledge, self-efficacy and motivation. The results will aid in sustainable interventions for future patient-centric education and coaching support to improve quality and outcomes in patients with CKD stages 3-5. Outcomes in patients with CKD stages 3-5 receiving the intervention will be compared with similar patients within a control group. Continuous quality improvement (CQI) and systems methodologies will be used to optimise resource neutrality and leverage existing technology to support implementation and future dissemination. The innovative approach of this research focuses on the importance of a multidisciplinary team, including off-site patient coaching, that can intervene early in the CKD care continuum by supporting patients with education and coaching. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will test impact of BP control when clinician-delivered education is followed by 12 months of MI-based health coaching. We will compare outcomes in 350 patients with CKD stages 3-5 between intervention and control groups in primary care. CQI and systems methodologies will optimise education and coaching for future implementation and dissemination. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Boards (IRBMED) HUM00136011, HUM00150672 and SITE00000092 and the results of the study will be published on ClinicalTrials.gov, in peer-reviewed journals, as well as conference abstracts, posters and presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04087798.

Pharmacogenomic testing for mental health (Part I): documenting early adopter perceptions of use for eight scenarios.

Aim: We sought to understand how early adopters used pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing for treating depression and attention deficient hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Patients & methods: We conducted a phone survey with prescribers who had previously ordered an Informed PGx (Progenity, Inc., MI, USA) test. Results: We identified 1037 prescribers in our sampling period. Respondents (n = 64) were predominantly female (61.5%) and in pediatrics (n = 42; 64.6%). PGx testing was used for multiple scenarios (mean 3.3 ± 1.6); the most common was after no response to medication was observed (80%; 51/64). Most respondents state that test results typically reveal an altered metabolizer status. Conclusion: PGx test results ordered by early adopters often reveal altered metabolizers which leads them to change the depression/ADHD medication regimen. Future work should evaluate the clinical utility of PGx testing for depression/ADHD treatment.

Pharmacogenomic testing for mental health (Part II): qualitative analysis of early adopter prescriber perceptions.

Aim: We sought to explore how early adopters use pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing for treating depression and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Patients & methods: Prescribers of the Informed PGx (Progenity, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI 48108, USA) test completed a phone survey assessing use of PGx testing for different scenarios. We conducted a qualitative thematic text analysis of transcribed audio recordings of open-ended responses (n = 62). Results: PGx testing was used when treating multiple comorbidities or resistant disease, and to ease patients' concerns with future therapy. Use of PGx testing is influenced by insurance coverage, interpretability of results and results turnaround time. Conclusion: Prescribers used PGx tests to modify medications for complex patients with depression, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and other disorders to alleviate concerns related to adverse effects and lack of effectiveness.

Long-term clinical outcomes of care management for chronically depressed primary care patients: a report from the depression in primary care project.

PURPOSE: Recent studies examining depression disease management report improvements in short-term outcomes, but less is known about whether improvements are sustainable over time. This study evaluated the sustained clinical effectiveness of low-intensity depression disease management in chronically depressed patients. METHODS: The Depression in Primary Care (DPC) intervention was introduced in 5 primary care practices in the University of Michigan Health System, with 5 matched practices selected as control sites. Clinicians were free to refer none, some, or all of their depressed patients at their discretion. Core clinical outcomes of remission and serial change in Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8) scores for 728 DPC enrollees observed for up to 18 months after enrollment were compared with those for 78 patients receiving usual care who completed mailed questionnaires at baseline, 6, 12, and 18 months. RESULTS: DPC enrollees had sustained improvement in remission rates and reduced-function days over the full 18 months. Mean change in the PHQ-8 score over each 6-month interval was more favorable for DPC enrollees than for usual care patients, and the proportion of DPC enrollees in remission was higher at 6 months (43.4% vs 33.3%; P = .11), 12 months (52.0% vs 33.9%; P = .012), and 18 months (49.2% vs 27.3%; P = .004). Multivariate analysis controlling for age, sex, ethnicity, baseline severity, and comorbid medical illness confirmed that DPC enrollees had significantly more reduction in depressive symptom burden over 18 months. CONCLUSIONS: The DPC intervention produced sustained improvement in clinical outcomes over 18 months in a cohort of chronically depressed patients with persistent symptoms despite active treatment.

Using Pharmacogenomic Testing in Primary Care: Protocol for a Pilot Randomized Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressants are used by primary care providers to treat a variety of conditions, including (but not limited to) depression and anxiety. A trial-and-error approach is typically used to identify effective therapy, as treatment efficacy and safety can vary based on the response, which is affected by certain gene types. Pharmacokinetic pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing provides phenotypic classification of individuals as poor, intermediate, extensive, and ultrarapid CYP450 metabolizers, providing information for optimal drug selection. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this pilot study is to examine the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of PGx testing when used after starting a new antidepressant medication. METHODS: We are conducting a pilot study with physicians from 6 Department of Family Medicine clinics at the University of Michigan who are willing to use PGx test results to manage antidepressant medication use. From enrolled physicians, patients were recruited to participate in a 6-month randomized, wait-list controlled trial in which patient participants newly prescribed an antidepressant had PGx testing and were randomized equally to have the results released to their primary care physician as soon as results were available or after 3 months. Patients were excluded if they had been taking the antidepressant for more than 4 weeks or if they had undergone PGx testing in the past. Physician participants completed a baseline survey to assess demographics, as well as knowledge, feasibility, and acceptability of PGx testing for this population. At the conclusion of the study, physician participants will complete a survey to assess knowledge, satisfaction, feasibility, acceptability, perceived effectiveness, and barriers to widespread adoption of PGx testing. Patient participants will complete a baseline, 3-month, and 6-month assessment, and control patient participants will have an additional 9-month assessment. Data collected will include the reason for antidepressant use, self-reported medication adherence, side effects, patient health questionnaire 8-item depression scale, generalized anxiety disorder 7-item scale, 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey, work status or changes, and physician and emergency department visits. PGx knowledge and perceptions (including acceptability and feasibility) as well as demographic information will also be obtained. RESULTS: We recruited 23 physician participants between November 2017 and January 2019, and 52 patient participants between January 2018 and April 2019. Currently, all physician and patient participants have been recruited, and we expect data collection to conclude in January 2020. CONCLUSIONS: This study will examine the preliminary effectiveness of PGx testing after treatment initiation and determine the feasibility and acceptability of PGx testing for use in primary care. Through this study, we expect to demonstrate the benefit of PGx testing and lay the foundation for translating this approach into use within primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03270891; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03270891. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/13848.

Impact of a generalizable reminder system on colorectal cancer screening in diverse primary care practices: a report from the prompting and reminding at encounters for prevention project.

BACKGROUND: Computerized reminder systems (CRS) show promise for increasing preventive services such as colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, prior research has not evaluated a generalizable CRS across diverse, community primary care practices. We evaluated whether a generalizable CRS, ClinfoTracker, could improve screening rates for CRC in diverse primary care practices. METHODS: The study was a prospective trial to evaluate ClinfoTracker using historical control data in 12 Great Lakes Research In Practice Network community-based, primary care practices distributed from Southeast to Upper Peninsula Michigan. Our outcome measures were pre- and post-study practice-level CRC screening rates among patients seen during the 9-month study period. Ability to maintain the CRS was measured by days of reminder printing. Field notes were used to examine each practice's cohesion and technology capabilities. RESULTS: All but one practice increased their CRC screening rates, ranging from 3.3% to 16.8% improvement. t tests adjusted for within practice correlation showed improvement in screening rates across all 12 practices, from 41.7% to 50.9%, P = 0.002. Technology capabilities impacted printing days (74% for high technology vs. 45% for low technology practices, P = 0.01), and cohesion demonstrated an impact trend for screening (15.3% rate change for high cohesion vs. 7.9% for low cohesion practices). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing a generalizable CRS in diverse primary care practices yielded significant improvements in CRC screening rates. Technology capabilities are important in maintaining the system, but practice cohesion may have a greater influence on screening rates. This work has important implications for practices implementing reminder systems.

Primary versus specialty care outcomes for depressed outpatients managed with measurement-based care: results from STAR*D.

BACKGROUND: Whether the acute outcomes of major depressive disorder (MDD) treated in primary (PC) or specialty care (SC) settings are different is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To compare the treatment and outcomes for depressed outpatients treated in primary versus specialty settings with citalopram in the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study (www.star-d.org), a broadly inclusive effectiveness trial. DESIGN: Open clinical trial with citalopram for up to 14 weeks at 18 primary and 23 specialty sites. Participants received measurement-based care with 5 recommended treatment visits, manualized pharmacotherapy, ongoing support and guidance by a clinical research coordinator, the use of structured evaluation of depressive symptoms and side effects at each visit, and a centralized treatment monitoring and feedback system. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2,876 previously established outpatients in primary (n = 1091) or specialty (n = 1785) with nonpsychotic depression who had at least 1 post-baseline measure. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Remission (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale for Depression [Hamilton] or 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Rated [QIDS-SR(16)]); response (QIDS-SR(16)); time to first remission (QIDS-SR(16)). Remission rates by Hamilton (26.6% PC vs 28.0% SC, p = .40) and by QIDS-SR(16) (32.5% PC vs 33.1% SC, p = .78) and response rates by QIDS-SR(16) (45.7% PC vs 47.6% SC, p = .33) were not different. For those who reached remission or response at exit, the time to remission (6.2 weeks PC vs 6.9 weeks SC, p = .12) and to response (5.5 weeks PC vs 5.4 weeks SC, p = .97) did not differ by setting. CONCLUSIONS: Identical remission and response rates can be achieved in primary and specialty settings when identical care is provided.

Explaining patients' beliefs about the necessity and harmfulness of antidepressants.

PURPOSE: Patients' beliefs about antidepressants vary widely and probably influence adherence, yet little is known about what underlies such beliefs. This study's objective was to identify the demographic and clinical characteristics that account for patients' beliefs about antidepressants. METHODS: Participants were 165 patients with unipolar nonpsychotic major depression from primary care and psychiatry clinics who were participating in the baseline phase of a multistaged trial of medication and psychotherapy. Before patients started antidepressants, interview and self-report measures were used to assess treatment beliefs, depression features, and comorbid conditions. Linear multivariate regression was used to identify the strongest correlates of perceived medication necessity and harmfulness after adjusting for age, sex, education, and the random effects of patients within clinical site. RESULTS: Perceived necessity was associated with older age (P <.001), more severe symptoms (P = .03), longer anticipated duration of symptoms (P=.001), and attribution of symptoms to chemical imbalance (P=.005). Perceived harmfulness was highest among patients who had not taken antidepressants before (P = .02), attributed their symptoms to random factors (P=.04), and had a subjectively unclear understanding of depression (P = .003). Neither belief was significantly associated with sex, education, age at first depressive episode, presence of melancholia or anxiety, psychiatric comorbidity, or clinical setting. CONCLUSIONS: Skepticism about antidepressants is strongest among younger patients who have never taken antidepressants, view their symptoms as mild and transient, and feel unclear about the factors affecting their depression. Perhaps these patients would benefit the most from adherence promotion focusing on treatment beliefs.

A comparison of baseline sociodemographic and clinical characteristics between major depressive disorder patients with and without diabetes: a STAR*D report.

BACKGROUND: Patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) have high rates of medical comorbidities which can impair MDD treatment. Yet little is known regarding associations between the presence of a serious comorbidity and MDD treatment. The purpose of this study was to examine the baseline sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of MDD outpatients with and without diabetes mellitus to evaluate possible associations between these characteristics and the presence of comorbid diabetes. METHODS: We gathered baseline sociodemographic and clinical data for 4041 participants with non-psychotic MDD who enrolled in the STAR*D, a large-scale depression treatment protocol, and made comparisons between participants with and without diabetes. RESULTS: Participants with diabetes were more likely to be male, older, black, Hispanic, unemployed, and have less education, a lower income, higher mental functioning, lower physical functioning, atypical features, increased appetite, psychomotor slowing and leaden paralysis, and were less likely to have concurrent alcohol abuse/dependence, mood reactivity or problems with concentration. We found no significant differences between groups regarding depression severity. LIMITATIONS: The primary limitation is the lack of a clinical diagnosis of diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference in depression severity between participants with and without diabetes. Diabetes was associated with physical symptoms of depression. Thus treatments for these participants should be directed toward these symptoms.

Trajectories of improvement for six depression-related outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Although depression treatment improves diverse outcomes, it is unclear whether these improvements are comparable in magnitude and timing. The objective was therefore to compare treatment-related improvements in depressive symptoms, work and social functioning, hopefulness, somatic complaints and positive well-being. METHOD: Secondary analysis of a large clinical trial of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for primary care depression. Depressed patients (n=573) from 37 practices from two primary care networks were randomized to fluoxetine, paroxetine or sertraline, and then followed naturalistically. At 1, 3, 6 and 9 months after treatment initiation, assessments were made of depressive symptom severity, social and work functioning, positive well-being, hopefulness beliefs and somatic complaints. Data were analyzed with linear regression modeling. RESULTS: Although 68% and 88% of total mood improvement occurred by Months 1 and 3, respectively, improvement plateaued sooner for somatic complaints (P=.001 at Month 1), and more gradually for hopefulness [P (Month 1)=.015, P (Month 3)=.036]. Although magnitude of improvement was interrelated across outcomes, timing of mood improvement was unrelated to the timing of improvement in both somatic complaints and hopefulness. Improvement in somatic complaints was primarily attributable to improvements in head, back and stomach pain. CONCLUSIONS: Work and social functioning, and positive affect improve synchronously with mood. Compared to mood, improvement in pain complaints peaks earlier, whereas improvement in hopefulness is much more linear over time. Because depression treatment response appears to be complex and multidimensional, a broader conceptualization of depression remission may be indicated.

Capturing complexity: the case for a new classification system for mental disorders in primary care.

Primary care differs considerably from specialist mental health settings: problems are presented in undifferentiated forms, with consequent difficulties in distinguishing between distress and disorder, and a complex relationship between psychological, mental and social problems and their temporal variations. Existing psychiatric diagnostic systems, including ICD-10-PHC and DSM-IV-PC, are often difficult to apply in primary care. They do not adequately address co-morbidity, the substantial prevalence of sub-threshold disorders or problems with cross-cultural applications. Their focus on diagnosis may be too restrictive, with a need to consider severity and impairment separately. ICPC-2, a classification system created specifically for use in primary care, provides advantages in that it allows for simple linkage between reason for encounter, diagnosis and intervention. It is both necessary and feasible to develop a classification system for mental health in primary care that can meet four basic criteria: (1) characterized by simplicity; (2) addressing not only diagnosis but also severity, chronicity and disability; (3) feasible for routine data gathering in primary care as well as for training; and (4) enabling efficient communication between primary and specialty mental health care.

Towards a Learning Health System to Reduce Emergency Department Visits at a Population Level.

High utilizers of the Emergency Department (ED) often have complex needs that require coordination of care between multiple organizations. We describe a Learning Health Systems (LHS) approach to reducing ED visits, in which an intervention is delivered to a cohort of high utilizers identified using population-level data and predictive modeling. We focus on the development and validation of a random forest model that utilizes electronic health record data from three health systems across two counties in Michigan to predict the number of ED visits each resident will incur in the next six months. Using 5-fold cross-validation, the model achieves a root-mean-squared-error of 0.51 visits and a mean absolute error of 0.24 visits. Using time-based validation, the model achieves a root-mean-squared error of 0.74 visits and a mean absolute error of 0.29 visits. Patients projected to have high ED utilization are being enrolled in a community-wide care coordination intervention using twelve sites across two counties. We believe that the repeated cycles of modeling and intervention demonstrate an LHS in action.

Major depression symptoms in primary care and psychiatric care settings: a cross-sectional analysis.

PURPOSE: We undertook a study to confirm and extend preliminary findings that participants with major depressive disorder (MDD) in primary care and specialty care settings have with equivalent degrees of depression severity and an indistinguishable constellation of symptoms. METHODS: Baseline data were collected for a distinct validation cohort of 2,541 participants (42% primary care) from 14 US regional centers comprised of 41 clinic sites (18 primary care, 23 specialty care). Participants met broadly inclusive eligibility criteria requiring a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, diagnosis of MDD and a minimum depressive symptom score on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. The main outcome measures were the 30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology--Clinician Rated and the Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire. RESULTS: Primary care and specialty care participants had identical levels of moderately severe depression and identical distributions of depressive severity scores. Both primary care and specialty care participants showed considerable suicide risk, with specialty care participants even more likely to report prior suicide attempts. Core depressive symptoms or concurrent psychiatric disorders were not substantially different between settings. One half of participants in each setting had an anxiety disorder (48.6% primary care vs 51.6% specialty care, P = .143), with social phobia being the most common (25.3% primary care vs 32.1% specialty care, P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: For outpatients with nonpsychotic MDD, depressive symptoms and severity vary little between primary care and specialty care settings. In this large, broadly inclusive US sample, the risk factors for chronic and recurrent depressive illness were frequently present, highlighting a clear risk for treatment resistance and the need for aggressive management strategies in both settings.

Adherence to maintenance-phase antidepressant medication as a function of patient beliefs about medication.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify the demographic, psychiatric, and attitudinal predictors of treatment adherence during the maintenance phase of antidepressant treatment, ie, after symptoms and regimen are stabilized. METHODS: We surveyed 81 primary care patients given maintenance antidepressant medications regarding general adherence, recent missed doses, depression and treatment features, medication beliefs (necessity, concerns, harmfulness, and overprescription), and other variables. Additional data were collected from medical and payer records. RESULTS: Median treatment duration was 75 weeks. Adherence and beliefs were broadly dispersed and unrelated to treatment duration and type, physical functioning, and demographics. Multivariate analysis adjusting for social desirability, depression severity, and treatment duration indicated that an antidepressant-specific "necessity-minus-concerns" composite was strongly associated with both adherence outcomes. Specifically, adherence was highest when necessity exceeded concerns and lowest when concerns exceeded necessity. We crossed these 2 dimensions to characterize 4 patient attitudes toward antidepressants: skepticism, indifference, ambivalence, and acceptance. CONCLUSIONS: Patients given maintenance antidepressants vary widely in adherence. This variation is primarily explained by the balance between their perceptions of need and harmfulness of antidepressant medication, in that adherence is lowest when perceived harm exceeds perceived need, and highest when perceived need exceeds perceived harm. We speculate on ways to tailor adherence strategies to patient beliefs. Subsequent research should determine whether patients' perceptions about medication predict depression outcomes, can be used to improve clinical management, and respond to behavioral intervention.

A direct comparison of presenting characteristics of depressed outpatients from primary vs. specialty care settings: preliminary findings from the STAR*D clinical trial.

PURPOSE: No study has directly compared the clinical features of depression for patients entering clinical trials using identical enrollment criteria at primary care (PC) and specialty care (SC) settings. The Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study (http://www.star-d.org) provides a unique opportunity to provide this comparison for patients with a major depressive disorder (MDD) requiring treatment. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We report baseline data for the first 1500 patients enrolled in this trial involving 41 clinic sites (18 PC, 23 SC). Broadly inclusive eligibility criteria required that patients have a DSM-IV diagnosis of nonpsychotic MDD, have not failed an adequate medication trial during their current episode and score>or=14 on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17). Primary outcomes included the 30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Clinician-Rated (IDS-C30) and the HAM-D17. RESULTS: Specialty care and PC patients had equivalent degrees of depressive severity (IDS-C30=35.8; HAM-D17=20.4). Specialty care patients were almost twice as likely to report a prior suicide attempt than PC patients (21% vs. 12%, P<.0001) and slightly less likely to endorse suicidal ideation in the past week (45.0% vs. 50.8%, P=.006). The only other distinguishing core symptoms were a slightly lower likelihood of PC patients endorsing depressed mood (95.2% vs. 97.7%, P=.032) or anhedonia (66.3% vs. 70.7%, P=.042, IDS-C30) and a lower likelihood of PC patients endorsing weight loss (IDS-C30). HAM-D17 results were identical. CONCLUSION: Depressive severity was not different, and symptomatic presentations did not differ substantially. Major depressive disorder is more similar than different among patients at SC and PC settings. Thus, similar clinical and research methods for screening, detecting and measuring treatment outcomes can be applied in both settings.

Clinical reminders designed and implemented using cognitive and organizational science principles decrease reminder fatigue.

BACKGROUND: Response rates to point-of-care clinical reminders typically decrease over time. We hypothesized that this "reminder fatigue" could be prevented by (1) applying sound human factors engineering and cognitive science principles in designing the reminder system, and (2) implementing the reminders with rigorous attention to organizational science principles. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort enumeration from January 1, 2006, through July 31, 2012, in a set of 5 academically affiliated family medicine practices. We modeled the odds ratio of clinician action in response to a reminder according to the number of reminders issued during the encounter, the number of problems on the patient's problem list, patient age, and time (number of months since launch) using logistic regression with clustering by encounter. RESULTS: There were issued 988,149 reminders at 453,537 encounters during the sampling frame. Action was taken in response to 60.1% of reminders, and discussion or consideration was documented in another 26.8%. The odds ratios for action in response to reminders over time, by number of prompts during the encounter, and by number of problems were 1.01, 1.18, and 1.02, respectively. Key design features included issuing reminders only when a service was due, allowing clinicians to attend to reminders when doing so fit their workflow (vs forcing attention at a specific time), keeping reminders very short and simple (action item only, no explicative material), and a team meeting and buy-in process before each new reminder was implemented. CONCLUSIONS: Reminder fatigue over time, with increasing numbers of reminders and with increasing complexity of patients, is not inevitable. A reminder system designed and implemented in accordance with the principles of cognitive science and human factors engineering can prevent reminder fatigue.

Improving the assessment of depression remission with the Remission Evaluation and Mood Inventory Tool.

OBJECTIVE: The Remission Evaluation and Mood Inventory Tool (REMIT) is a practical 5-item self-report measure of key positive mood states associated with recovering from depression, as distinct from depressive symptoms per se. The study goal was to identify a clinically useful threshold for interpreting REMIT responses in the context of mild to moderate depressive symptoms. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional dataset initially used to develop and validate the REMIT. Primary care patients being treated for depressive symptoms of either mild or moderate severity (n = 247 and 240, respectively) rated their perceived degree of depression remission prior to completing the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 (PHQ-8) and the REMIT. We summed the totals of the latter two measures to form the PHQ + REMIT index. RESULTS: Receiver Operating Characteristics analysis indicated that the PHQ + REMIT threshold ≥ 13 was associated with good sensitivity (92%) and acceptable specificity (43%) to the absence of patient-perceived remission. In contrast, the PHQ had only 21% specificity at this sensitivity level. Area under the curve was 0.815 (95% C.I.: 0.765-0.865), which was significantly greater than that of the PHQ-8 alone (area under the curve = 0.745, 95% C.I.: 0.691-0.805, p(diff) = 0.0002). Threshold performance was unaffected by adjustment for demographic characteristics and variation in remission percentage. Compared with standard symptom-based classification, using the REMIT reclassified 27% of mildly symptomatic patients as remitted. CONCLUSIONS: Using the REMIT with patients who have mild to moderate depressive symptoms improves the assessment of patient-perceived remission, which is indicated by a summed PHQ + REMIT index of less than 13. Longitudinal research is needed to test whether this broadened patient-centered approach to assessing remission improves clinical decision making and long-term outcomes.