Associations between primary health care strategies and outcomes of mental disorders

Objective: To investigate associations between the percentage and severity of mental disorders (MD) and three different primary health care (PHC) strategies in Brazil: traditional care (TC), the Family Health Strategy (FHS), and FHS with shared mental health care (FHS+SC). Methods: Random samples were selected from three different areas of a Brazilian city. Each area was served by a different PHC strategy (TC, FHS, or FHS+SC). Five mental health professionals, blinded to the type of PHC strategy delivered in each area, conducted interviews using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) and other specific instruments to assess the prevalence and severity of MD. Results: 530 subjects were interviewed. The TC strategy was significantly associated with a higher percentage of MD when compared to FHS and FHS+SC. These results were not affected by adjustment for sociodemographic variables. The difference in prevalence of MD between the two FHS areas (with and without SC) was not statistically significant. No significant differences in MD severity were observed across the three PHC strategies. Conclusion: Areas covered by FHS showed a lower percentage of MD than those covered by TC. Presence of SC did not influence the prevalence of MD, suggesting that mental-health training of FHS teams may have minimized the influence of SC.

Associations between primary health care strategies and outcomes of mental disorders.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate associations between the percentage and severity of mental disorders (MD) and three different primary health care (PHC) strategies in Brazil: traditional care (TC), the Family Health Strategy (FHS), and FHS with shared mental health care (FHS+SC). METHODS: Random samples were selected from three different areas of a Brazilian city. Each area was served by a different PHC strategy (TC, FHS, or FHS+SC). Five mental health professionals, blinded to the type of PHC strategy delivered in each area, conducted interviews using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) and other specific instruments to assess the prevalence and severity of MD. RESULTS: 530 subjects were interviewed. The TC strategy was significantly associated with a higher percentage of MD when compared to FHS and FHS+SC. These results were not affected by adjustment for sociodemographic variables. The difference in prevalence of MD between the two FHS areas (with and without SC) was not statistically significant. No significant differences in MD severity were observed across the three PHC strategies. CONCLUSION: Areas covered by FHS showed a lower percentage of MD than those covered by TC. Presence of SC did not influence the prevalence of MD, suggesting that mental-health training of FHS teams may have minimized the influence of SC.

Association Between Physician Depressive Symptoms and Medical Errors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Depression is highly prevalent among physicians and has been associated with increased risk of medical errors. However, questions regarding the magnitude and temporal direction of these associations remain open in recent literature. Objective: To provide summary relative risk (RR) estimates for the associations between physician depressive symptoms and medical errors. Data Sources: A systematic search of Embase, ERIC, PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science was performed from database inception to December 31, 2018. Study Selection: Peer-reviewed empirical studies that reported on a valid measure of physician depressive symptoms associated with perceived or observed medical errors were included. No language restrictions were applied. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Study characteristics and RR estimates were extracted from each article. Estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Differences by study-level characteristics were estimated using subgroup meta-analysis and metaregression. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline was followed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Relative risk estimates for the associations between physician depressive symptoms and medical errors. Results: In total, 11 studies involving 21 517 physicians were included. Data were extracted from 7 longitudinal studies (64%; with 5595 individuals) and 4 cross-sectional studies (36%; with 15 922 individuals). The overall RR for medical errors among physicians with a positive screening for depression was 1.95 (95% CI, 1.63-2.33), with high heterogeneity across the studies (χ2 = 49.91; P < .001; I2 = 82%; τ2 = 0.06). Among the variables assessed, study design explained the most heterogeneity across studies, with lower RR estimates associated with medical errors in longitudinal studies (RR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.43-1.84; χ2 = 5.77; P = .33; I2 = 13%; τ2 < 0.01) and higher RR estimates in cross-sectional studies (RR, 2.51; 95% CI, 2.20-2.83; χ2 = 5.44; P = .14; I2 = 45%; τ2 < 0.01). Similar to the results for the meta-analysis of physician depressive symptoms associated with subsequent medical errors, the meta-analysis of 4 longitudinal studies (involving 4462 individuals) found that medical errors associated with subsequent depressive symptoms had a pooled RR of 1.67 (95% CI, 1.48-1.87; χ2 = 1.85; P = .60; I2 = 0%; τ2 = 0), suggesting that the association between physician depressive symptoms and medical errors is bidirectional. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study suggest that physicians with a positive screening for depressive symptoms are at higher risk for medical errors. Further research is needed to evaluate whether interventions to reduce physician depressive symptoms could play a role in mitigating medical errors and thus improving physician well-being and patient care.

Clinical validity and intrarater and test-retest reliability of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 - Clinician Version (SCID-5-CV).

AIM: The Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM is one of the most used diagnostic instruments in clinical research worldwide. The current Clinician Version of the instrument (SCID-5-CV) has not yet been assessed in respect to its psychometric qualities. We aimed to assess the clinical validity and different reliability indicators (interrater test-retest, joint interview, face-to-face vs telephone application) of the SCID-5-CV in a large sample of 180 non-prototypical and psychiatric patients based on interviews conducted by raters with different levels of clinical experience. METHODS: The SCID-5-CV was administered face-to-face and by telephone by 12 psychiatrists/psychologists who took turns as raters and observers. Clinical diagnoses were established according to DSM-5 criteria and the longitudinal, expert, all data (LEAD) procedure. We calculated the percentage of agreement, diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, and the level of agreement (kappa) for diagnostic categories and specific diagnoses. RESULTS: The percentage of positive agreement between the interview and clinical diagnoses ranged between 73% and 97% and the diagnostic sensitivity/specificity were >0.70. In the joint interview, the levels of positive agreement were high (>75%) and kappa levels were >0.70 for most diagnoses. The values were less expressive, but still adequate, for interrater test-retest interviews. CONCLUSION: The SCID-5-CV presented excellent reliability and high specificity as assessed with different methods. The clinical validity of the instrument was also confirmed, which supports its use in daily clinical practice. We highlight the adequacy of the instrument to be used via telephone and the need for careful use by professionals with little experience in psychiatric clinical practice.