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

INTRODUCTION: Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) are evidence-based treatments, yet can be controversial among some populations. This study provides a systematic review of prejudice and discrimination toward MOUD, a form of "intervention stigma," or stigma associated with a particular medical treatment. METHODS: A systematic search strategy was used in PsychInfo and PubMed to identify studies published between 1998 and 2018. Studies that empirically examined stigma toward MOUD were included if the manuscript was of moderate or high quality. Studies were analyzed using thematic synthesis. RESULTS: The search yielded 972 studies, of which 28 were included. Most studies utilized qualitative methods to examine intervention stigma toward methadone or buprenorphine, with one including naltrexone. Studies demonstrated that intervention stigma among healthcare providers was influenced by lack of training and abstinent treatment preferences. Providers equated MOUD with illicit substance use and at times refused to care for MOUD patients. Stigma among peer patients seeking treatment was also influenced by abstinent treatment preferences, and among the general public stigma was influenced by lack of MOUD knowledge. Intervention stigma was also driven at the policy level by high regulation of methadone, which fueled diversion and hindered social functioning among patients. Few studies indicated how to reduce intervention stigma toward MOUD. CONCLUSIONS: Intervention stigma affects both provision and perceptions of methadone and buprenorphine, decreasing access and utilization of MOUD. Future research should further develop and test MOUD stigma reduction interventions in a variety of social contexts to improve access to care and reduce patient barriers.

BACKGROUND: This proof-of-concept study tested the feasibility and acceptability of INTEGRATE-D, an implementation support intervention for primary care clinics to improve the psychosocial care of patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Cluster randomized controlled pragmatic trial, with a parallel, convergent mixed methods design. Two Intervention Clinics (ICs) were offered tailored training on American Diabetes Association (ADA)-recommended psychosocial care and facilitation to identify and support clinical change. Two Control Clinics (CCs) received no intervention. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: intervention acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: process-of-care metrics (eg, depression screening, diabetes management) and clinical outcomes measures (PHQ-9 and A1C). Qualitative data were collected to assess implementation and experience with the intervention. RESULTS: ICs were offered training and received 15-months of facilitation. To accommodate COVID-19-related safety restrictions, the intervention was changed to be delivered virtually (eg, remote facilitation and training sessions). Despite an adapted delivery and COVID-19 and staffing stressors, clinics exposed to INTEGRATE-D found it to be acceptable, well-aligned with clinics' needs, and feasible. Qualitative data suggest COVID-19 stressors tempered feasibility. The effect of INTEGRATE-D on process and clinical outcome measures were mixed. Several factors, including differences in ICs and CCs not addressed in randomization and delivery of a less intensive intervention due to the pandemic, may help explain these results. CONCLUSIONS: Given the growing number of people with type 2 diabetes and the importance of psychosocial care for these patients, INTEGRATE-D warrants further pilot-testing with a larger sample of clinics and patients, and under conditions where in-person facilitation and expanded training is possible.