Psychiatry Consultation in Primary Care: Examining Treatment Access for Adolescent Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Youth in the United States are experiencing mental health concerns at an unprecedented level. Child Psychiatry Access Programs offer an innovative approach to close the gap between the need for care and insufficient mental health workforce. This study examined whether primary care provider consultation with a Child Psychiatry Access Program, Michigan Clinical Consultation & Care (MC3), was associated with greater access to treatment for adolescents with moderate to severe depression symptoms. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of primary care visits between 2017 and 2021 for adolescent patients with first-time positive scores on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were used to examine if patients whose primary care provider used MC3 psychiatric consultations had improved access to depression treatment compared to those who did not. RESULTS: Four hundred seventy nine patients reported Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores indicating moderate to severe depression symptoms. Compared to non-MC3 consult patients (n = 409), MC3 consult patients (n = 70) had higher odds of being prescribed antidepressant medications (odds ratio [OR], 2.16; 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.11-4.22], p = .05), 4 times higher odds of having a primary care follow-up visit to monitor depression symptoms (OR, 4.56, 95% CI [2.56-8.14], p < .001), and higher odds of accessing mental health therapy (OR, 2.14; 95% CI [1.13-4.05], p = .05). DISCUSSION: Use of MC3 consultations was associated with increased utilization of evidence-based depression treatments including medication, therapy, and follow-up care. Greater adoption of models such as MC3 may increase the capacity for addressing mental health needs in children.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".