ArticleFamily medicine and community health2025
Leveraging clinical decision support to improve depression screening and follow-up: insights from a quality improvement case study.
Article in Family medicine and community health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveThe primary objective was to evaluate the impact of clinical decision support (CDS) tool integration into primary care visits on depression screening and follow-up rates and to assess whether CDS use improves adherence to Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) guidelines for depression screening and follow-up.
designThis quality improvement evaluation study employed quantitative and qualitative components conducted in parallel to provide complementary insights. Modified Poisson regression with generalised estimating equation (GEE) was used to assess the association between CDS tool use and meeting HRSA criteria for depression screening and follow-up. In addition, semi-structured interviews explored perspectives on the implementation and utility of CDS tools.
settingThis study was conducted at a federally qualified health centre in Minnesota. PARTICIPANT: The dataset included 12 338 patient encounters attributed to 8647 unique patients, covering 2 years of data. Five care providers were recruited through purposive sampling for the semi-structured interviews.
resultCDS use was significantly associated with an increased likelihood of meeting HRSA depression screening and follow-up criteria (relative risk 1.44, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.55; p<0.001). Qualitative findings suggested that while providers found CDS tools useful, workflow challenges and human-centred practices shaped their effectiveness.
conclusionIntegrating CDS tools into primary care workflows can enhance adherence to depression screening and follow-up guidelines. However, their effectiveness relies on supportive person-centred approaches, including collaboration and previsit preparation. These findings highlight the need for a balanced approach that integrates technological interventions with human interaction to enhance clinical practices. Future research should investigate how CDS tools are used in practice, address barriers to their adoption and develop strategies to promote their broader use while fostering continued learning among providers.
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.