Perceived Facilitators of and Barriers to Implementation of a Decision Support Tool for Adolescent Depression and Suicidality Screening: Focus Group and Interview Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Screening Wizard (SW) is a technology-based decision support tool aimed at guiding primary care providers (PCPs) to respond to depression and suicidality screens in adolescents. Separate screens assess adolescents' and parents' reports on mental health symptoms, treatment preferences, and potential treatment barriers. A detailed summary is provided to PCPs, also identifying adolescent-parent discrepancies. The goal of SW is to enhance decision-making to increase the utilization of evidence-based treatments. OBJECTIVE: This qualitative study aims to describe multi-stakeholder perspectives of adolescents, parents, and providers to understand the potential barriers to the implementation of SW. METHODS: We interviewed 11 parents and 11 adolescents and conducted two focus groups with 18 health care providers (PCPs, nurses, therapists, and staff) across 2 pediatric practices. Participants described previous experiences with screening for depression and were shown a mock-up of SW and asked for feedback. Interviews and focus groups were transcribed verbatim, and codebooks were inductively developed based on content. Transcripts were double coded, and disagreements were adjudicated to full agreement. Completed coding was used to produce thematic analyses of the interviews and focus groups. RESULTS: We identified five main themes across the interviews and focus groups: parents, adolescents, and pediatric PCPs agree that depression screening should occur in pediatric primary care; there is concern that accurate self-disclosure does not always occur during depression screening; SW is viewed as a tool that could facilitate depression screening and that might encourage more honesty in screening responses; parents, adolescents, and providers do not want SW to replace mental health discussions with providers; and providers want to maintain autonomy in treatment decisions. CONCLUSIONS: We identified that providers, parents, and adolescents are all concerned with current screening practices, mainly regarding inaccurate self-disclosure. They recognized value in SW as a computerized tool that may elicit more honest responses and identify adolescent-parent discrepancies. Surprisingly, providers did not want the SW report to include treatment recommendations, and all groups did not want the SW report to replace conversations with the PCP about depression. Although SW was originally developed as a treatment decision algorithm, this qualitative study has led us to remove this component, and instead, SW focuses on aspects identified as most useful by all groups. We hope that this initial qualitative work will improve the future implementation of SW.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,015 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».