ReviewJMIR mental health2021
Implementing the Routine Use of Electronic Mental Health Screening for Youth in Primary Care: Systematic Review.
Review in JMIR mental health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Technology-mediated screening interviews for youth mental health: Content validation, randomized controlled trial, and expert evaluation.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Human-Centered Design and Digital Transformation of Mental Health Services.JMIR human factors · 2025Review
- Getting help early: An online mental health self-assessment tool for young people.Clinical child psychology and psychiatry · 2025Article
- Pre-implementation determinants for digital mental health integration in Chicago pediatric primary care.Journal of pediatric psychology · 2025Article
- Review
- Large language models outperform general practitioners in identifying complex cases of childhood anxiety.Digital healthArticle
- Comparison of Adolescent Depression Screening Using Orally Administered Versus Written Self-Report Scores.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdolescents often present at primary care clinics with nonspecific physical symptoms when, in fact, they have at least 1 mental health or risk behavior (psychosocial) issue with which they would like help but do not disclose to their care provider. Despite global recommendations, over 50% of youths are not screened for mental health and risk behavior issues in primary care.
objectiveThis review aimed to examine the implementation, acceptability, feasibility, benefits, and barriers of e-screening tools for mental health and risk behaviors among youth in primary care settings.
methodsElectronic databases-MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews-were searched for studies on the routine screening of youth in primary care settings. Screening tools needed to be electronic and screen for at least 1 mental health or risk behavior issue. A total of 11 studies that were reported in 12 articles, of which all were from high-income countries, were reviewed.
resultse-Screening was largely proven to be feasible and acceptable to youth and their primary care providers. Preconsultation e-screening facilitated discussions about sensitive issues and increased disclosure by youth. However, barriers such as the lack of time, training, and discomfort in raising sensitive issues with youth continued to be reported.
conclusionsTo implement e-screening, clinicians need to change their behaviors, and e-screening processes must become normalized into their workflows. Co-designing and tailoring screening implementation frameworks to meet the needs of specific contexts may be required to ensure that clinicians overcome initial resistances and perceived barriers and adopt the required processes in their work.
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.