Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34784899›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2021

A pilot study of participatory and rapid implementation approaches to increase depression screening in primary care.

Briana S Last, Alison M Buttenheim, Anne C Futterer, Cecilia Livesey, Jeffrey Jaeger, Rebecca E Stewart, Megan Reilly, Matthew J Press, Maryanne Peifer, Courtney Benjamin Wolk and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

11 authors.

Briana S LastDepartment of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. brishiri@sas.upenn.edu.
Alison M ButtenheimDepartment of Family and Community Health, School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Anne C FuttererDepartment of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Cecilia LiveseyDepartment of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Jeffrey JaegerDepartment of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Rebecca E StewartLeonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Megan ReillyDepartment of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Matthew J PressLeonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Maryanne PeiferPrimary Care Service Line, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Courtney Benjamin Wolk *Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Rinad S Beidas *Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics (CHIBE), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMost individuals with depression go unidentified and untreated. In 2016 the US Preventive Services Task Force released guidelines recommending universal screening in primary care to identify patients with depression and to link them to treatment. Feasible, acceptable, and effective strategies to implement these guidelines are needed.

methodsThis three-phased study employed rapid participatory methods to design and test strategies to increase depression screening at Penn Medicine, a large health system with 90 primary care practices. First, researchers solicited ideas and barriers from stakeholders to increase screening using an innovation tournament-a crowdsourcing method that invites stakeholders to submit ideas to address a workplace challenge. Second, a panel of stakeholders and scientists deliberated over and ranked the tournament ideas. An instant runoff election was held to select the winning idea. Third, the research team piloted the winning idea in a primary care practice using rapid prototyping, an approach that quickly refines and iterates strategy designs.

resultsThe innovation tournament yielded 31 ideas and 32 barriers from diverse stakeholders (12 primary care physicians, 10 medical assistants, 4 nurse practitioners, 2 practice managers, and 4 patient support assistants). A panel of 6 stakeholders and scientists deliberated on the ideas and voted for patient self-report (i.e., through tablet computers, text message, or an online patient portal) as the winning idea. The research team rapid prototyped tablets in one primary care practice with one physician over 5 five-hour shifts to examine the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of the strategy. Most patients, the physician, and medical assistants found the tablets acceptable and feasible. However, patient support assistants struggled to incorporate them in their workflow and expressed concerns about scaling up the process. Depression screening rates were higher using tablets compared to usual care; follow-up was comparable between tablets and usual care.

conclusionsRapid participatory methods engaged and amplified the voices of diverse stakeholders in primary care. These methods helped design an acceptable and feasible implementation strategy that showed promise for increasing depression screening in a primary care setting. The next step is to evaluate the strategy in a randomized controlled trial across primary care practices.

Indexed as

DepressionPrimary Health CareHumansPilot ProjectsResearch DesignWorkplaceDepression screeningImplementation strategy designParticipatory researchPrimary careRapid implementation

Identifiers

PMID34784899
PMCPMC8593851

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.