Literature Collection

OBJECTIVE: The Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R) is widely used in clinical research to assess depression in adolescents; however, limited research explores its measurement properties. This study aimed to test the interrater reliability of the CDRS-R and describe the corresponding measurement error. METHOD: A cross-sectional design was used in the context of a controlled clinical trial. The sample consisted of help-seeking adolescents (N = 55, ages 13-18 years, inclusive) experiencing depressive symptoms. A research analyst administered and coded the CDRS-R to adolescents through a virtual video-based platform with audio and video recordings. A second research analyst independently watched and coded recordings. The lower bound of the 95% CI of the intraclass correlation coefficient with respect to absolute agreement between 2 independent raters was hypothesized to be ≥0.70. RESULTS: The reliability of CDRS-R was calculated as an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.84 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.91), indicating acceptable reliability. The associated standard error of measurement was 4.67, and the mean difference in scores between raters was 1.13. The limits of agreement were -11.59 to 13.84. CONCLUSION: The findings provide support for the CDRS-R as a tool with adequate interrater reliability to assess depressive symptoms in adolescents. The measurement error parameters can assist in clinical interpretation of differences in scores when adolescents are assessed by multiple raters. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: Effectiveness of an Integrated Care Pathway for Depression: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial (CARIBOU-2); https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05142683.; This study evaluated the reliability of the Childhood Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R), a common interview tool used to assess depression among youth. Researchers found strong agreement among different raters, with a high statistical reliability score of 0.84. These results suggest that the CDRS-R is a consistently reliable assessment tool.; eng

Background: Concurrent with the opioid overdose crisis there has been an increase in hospitalizations among people with opioid use disorder (OUD), with one in ten hospitalized medical or surgical patients having comorbid opioid-related diagnoses. We sought to conduct a systematic review of hospital-based interventions, their staffing composition, and their impact on outcomes for patients with OUD hospitalized for medical or surgical conditions. Methods: Authors searched PubMed MEDLINE, PsychINFO, and CINAHL from January 2015 through October 2020. The authors screened 463 titles and abstracts for inclusion and reviewed 96 full-text studies. Seventeen articles met inclusion criteria. Extracted were study characteristics, outcomes, and intervention components. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Methodological Quality Rating Scale. Results: Ten of the 17 included studies were controlled retrospective cohort studies, five were uncontrolled retrospective studies, one was a prospective quasi-experimental evaluation, and one was a secondary analysis of a completed randomized clinical trial. Intervention components and outcomes varied across studies. Outcomes included in-hospital initiation and post-discharge connection to medication for OUD, healthcare utilization, and discharge against medical advice. Results were mixed regarding the impact of existing interventions on outcomes. Most studies focused on linkage to medication for OUD during hospitalization and connection to post-discharge OUD care. Conclusions: Given that many individuals with OUD require hospitalization, there is a need for OUD-related interventions for this patient population. Interventions with the best evidence of efficacy facilitated connection to post-discharge OUD care and employed an Addiction Medicine Consult model.

INTRODUCTION: Standardized screening, objective evaluation, and management of behavioral health conditions are major challenges in primary care. The Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), and Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ) provide standardized screening and symptom management tools for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), major depressive disorder (MDD), and Mood Disorders (MD), respectively. This study explores family physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding the utilization of GAD-7, PHQ-9, and MDQ in outpatient primary care offices. METHODS: The study method was a cross-sectional electronic and paper survey utilizing a self-administered questionnaire that assessed primary care physicians' demographics, knowledge, attitudes, and practices in rural and urban outpatient clinical settings regarding GAD-7, PHQ-9, and MDQ. Statistical software SAS 9.4 was used for descriptive and Chi-Square statistics. RESULTS: Out of 320 total participants,145 responded (45.3%). Responding family physicians demonstrated a high level of familiarity with the GAD-7 (97.9%), PHQ-9 (97.9%), and MDQ (81.3%) assessment tools. However, the reported utilization rates were relatively lower than knowledge, with 62.7%, 73.1%, and 31.9% extremely likely or likely to utilize the GAD-7, PHQ-9, and MDQ as screening and monitoring tools, respectively. Less than a quarter of the total respondents use the objective score for the future management of GAD, with significantly more residents utilizing the score for GAD-7 compared to attendings (P < .05). There was no statistical significance difference between residents and attendings for the objective evaluation of Major Depressive Disorder (P = .26) and Mood Disorders (P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite being knowledgeable of the utility of GAD-7, PHQ-9, and MDQ, the primary care physicians in a large integrated health system in Central Pennsylvania and Northern Maryland report inconsistent utilization in their practice. Further studies are needed to determine the underlying factors contributing to the suboptimal usage of these screening tools and ways to increase it.