ArticleJournal of primary care & community health
Comparison of Adolescent Depression Screening Using Orally Administered Versus Written Self-Report Scores.
Article in Journal of primary care & community health. 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.
- Hospital-Based Pediatric Suicide Risk Screening Outcomes Vary by Demographic and Clinical Characteristics.JAACAP open · 2026Article
- Team-Effectiveness Barriers and Solutions to Depression Screening within a Pediatric Hospital Network: A Qualitative Study.Evidence-based practice in child and adolescent mental health · 2026Article
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
objectiveThe objective of our retrospective study was to evaluate differences between screening methods (oral administration versus written self-report) for adolescent depression in an outpatient settingStudy Design:We analyzed data from 4075 well-child check (WCC) visits from adolescents (ages 12-18 years) at an academic medical center from January 2022 through December 2023. We evaluated the outcomes of depression screening questions from both those asked by staff (oral administration) and those filled out on paper by the patient (written self-report). A composite score of 3 or greater (out of 6) indicates a positive screen for depression. Logistic regression was used to assess for the likelihood of discrepancy between scores.
resultsOf the 4518 WCC visits analyzed, 3380 (75%) had completed data for both the orally administered and the written screenings. The scores were equal in 2563 (76%) visits; the written score was greater in 766 (22.6%) visits and the oral score was greater in 51 (1.5%) visits. The screen was positive for depression in 232 (6.8%) visits for the written self-report compared with 66 (2.0%) from the oral administration. Logistic regression analyses showed likelihood of score differences were higher in older age, female gender, Hispanic race/ethnicity, and those with public insurance.
conclusionThis preliminary pilot study shows that there are score differences in depression screening when administered orally by staff versus self-reported in writing, and scores may be higher on the written self-report screening. Limitations of this study include slight differences in the wording of the questions and lack of rigorous protocol guidelines.
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.