Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31187072›Full record

ArticleInnovation in aging2019

Screening Older Adults for Depression: Barriers Across Clinical Discipline Training.

Ronald Smith, Suzanne Meeks

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Innovation in aging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ronald SmithDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Louisville, Kentucky.ORCID 0000-0002-3665-7966
Suzanne MeeksDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Louisville, Kentucky.ORCID 0000-0001-5696-6355
University of Louisville · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesDepressed older adults are more likely to be seen in primary care than in specialty mental health settings, but research shows that physicians may not routinely screen for depression. Other clinical disciplines are also in a position to screen for depression, but have not been studied. This study examined barriers to screening older adults for depression, and disciplinary differences in clinical trainees' likelihood of screening. RESEARCH DESIGN AND

methodsWe used a cross-sectional, online survey with experimental manipulation of vignettes. A four-way mixed analysis of variance explored the effects of clinical discipline (between subjects) and time pressure, patient difficulty, and level of symptoms (within subjects) on trainees' likelihood of screening.

resultsParticipants were 229 trainees in medicine (83), psychology (51), nursing (49), and social work (46). Lower time pressure and greater symptom severity increased likelihood of screening. There was a significant three-way interaction among discipline, patient difficulty, and symptom level that was driven by social work graduate trainees' greater likelihood of screening for depression when there were more symptoms present, which was diminished if the patient was being difficult. There was a two-way interaction between patient difficulty and level of symptoms: more symptoms resulted in increased likelihood of screening, an effect that diminished with greater patient difficulty. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: The study holds implications for identifying and addressing gaps in education on depression screening to minimize the effects of barriers. Interventions could address education about older adults and depression, including practice-based screening, time management, and behavior management skills.

Indexed as

BarriersDecision makingDepressionPrimary careScreening

Identifiers

PMID31187072
PMCPMC6541426
OpenAlexW2947742219

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.