ArticleHealth services research2014
Methods for assessing patient-clinician communication about depression in primary care: what you see depends on how you look.
Article in Health services research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Making the most of video recorded clinical encounters: Optimizing impact and productivity through interdisciplinary teamwork.Patient education and counseling · 2020Article
- Analysis of threats to research validity introduced by audio recording clinic visits: Selection bias, Hawthorne effect, both, or neither?Patient education and counseling · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo advance research on depression communication and treatment by comparing assessments of communication about depression from patient report, clinician report, and chart review to assessments from transcripts. DATA: One hundred sixty-four primary care visits from seven health care systems (2010-2011). STUDY
designPresence or absence of discussion about depressive symptoms, treatment recommendations, and follow-up was measured using patient and clinician postvisit questionnaires, chart review, and coding of audio transcripts. Sensitivity and specificity of indirect measures compared to transcripts were calculated. PRINCIPAL
findingsPatient report was sensitive for mood (83 percent) and sleep (83 percent) but not suicide (55 percent). Patient report was specific for suicide (86 percent) but not for other symptoms (44-75 percent). Clinician report was sensitive for all symptoms (83-98 percent) and specific for sleep, memory, and suicide (80-87 percent), but not for other symptoms (45-48 percent). Chart review was not sensitive for symptoms (50-73 percent), but it was specific for sleep, memory, and suicide (88-96 percent). All indirect measures had low sensitivity for treatment recommendations (patient report: 24-42 percent, clinician report 38-50 percent, chart review 49-67 percent) but high specificity (89-96 percent). For definite follow-up plans, all three indirect measures were sensitive (82-96 percent) but not specific (40-57 percent).
conclusionsClinician report and chart review generally had the most favorable sensitivity and specificity for measuring discussion of depressive symptoms and treatment recommendations, respectively.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.