ArticleBMJ open2025
Patient and provider factors associated with follow-up for positive depression screens in adults: a retrospective review of University of Utah primary and specialty care clinics.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Integrating digital therapeutics for patients with mental illness into clinical practice: perspectives for US healthcare professionals.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify patient and provider factors associated with lower rates of follow-up for positive depression screens in outpatient settings.
designRetrospective cohort study with electronic health record analysis investigating factors associated with follow-up care for patients with moderate-to-severe depressive symptoms. Patient and provider variables were associated with rates of follow-up for positive depression screens.
settingUniversity of Utah and University of Utah Health-affiliated primary care and specialty clinics.
participantsAdults who screened positive for depressive symptoms (score≥10) on the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) at an ambulatory visit between 1 January 2021 and 31 January 2022. A total of 17 651 patients were included in the study. OUTCOME MEASURES: Follow-up for positive depression screens was defined as a new antidepressant prescription or completed mental health visit. Variables associated with follow-up included patient demographic data, anthropometric measures, geographical classification, primary language, comorbidities and socioeconomic factors as well as provider demographics, level of training and clinic type.
results5396 patients (30.6%) did not receive follow-up care for a positive PHQ-9 screen. Factors associated with lower rates of follow-up included male patients (gender; p=0.013), older patients (age group; p=0.016), non-White patients (ethnicity; p<0.0001), non-English (primary language; p<0.0001), lack of insurance (p<0.0001), older providers (p=0.027), male providers (p=0.0037) and attending-level providers (p<0.0001).
conclusionsSignificant discrepancies in follow-up for positive depression screens in the ambulatory setting exist, particularly among racial/ethnic minority groups and patients who are non-native English speakers. Older providers and attending-level providers were less likely to facilitate follow-up for positive depression screens in their clinics.
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.