Methods for assessing patient-clinician communication about depression in primary care

What you see depends on how you look

Stephen G Henry, Bo Feng, Peter Franks, Robert A Bell, Daniel J Tancredi, Dustin Gottfeld, Richard L Kravitz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective To advance research on depression communication and treatment by comparing assessments of communication about depression from patient report, clinician report, and chart review to assessments from transcripts. Data One hundred sixty-four primary care visits from seven health care systems (2010-2011). Study Design Presence or absence of discussion about depressive symptoms, treatment recommendations, and follow-up was measured using patient and clinician postvisit questionnaires, chart review, and coding of audio transcripts. Sensitivity and specificity of indirect measures compared to transcripts were calculated. Principal Findings Patient report was sensitive for mood (83 percent) and sleep (83 percent) but not suicide (55 percent). Patient report was specific for suicide (86 percent) but not for other symptoms (44-75 percent). Clinician report was sensitive for all symptoms (83-98 percent) and specific for sleep, memory, and suicide (80-87 percent), but not for other symptoms (45-48 percent). Chart review was not sensitive for symptoms (50-73 percent), but it was specific for sleep, memory, and suicide (88-96 percent). All indirect measures had low sensitivity for treatment recommendations (patient report: 24-42 percent, clinician report 38-50 percent, chart review 49-67 percent) but high specificity (89-96 percent). For definite follow-up plans, all three indirect measures were sensitive (82-96 percent) but not specific (40-57 percent). Conclusions Clinician report and chart review generally had the most favorable sensitivity and specificity for measuring discussion of depressive symptoms and treatment recommendations, respectively.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1684-1700
Number of pages17
JournalHealth Services Research
Volume49
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2014

Fingerprint

Primary Health Care
Suicide
Communication
Depression
Sleep
Sensitivity and Specificity
Therapeutics
Delivery of Health Care
Research

Keywords

  • depression
  • Patient-clinician communication
  • primary care
  • quality

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Methods for assessing patient-clinician communication about depression in primary care : What you see depends on how you look. / Henry, Stephen G; Feng, Bo; Franks, Peter; Bell, Robert A; Tancredi, Daniel J; Gottfeld, Dustin; Kravitz, Richard L.

In: Health Services Research, Vol. 49, No. 5, 01.10.2014, p. 1684-1700.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{bb99d018fbc04ee9aa73779af27835a0,
title = "Methods for assessing patient-clinician communication about depression in primary care: What you see depends on how you look",
abstract = "Objective To advance research on depression communication and treatment by comparing assessments of communication about depression from patient report, clinician report, and chart review to assessments from transcripts. Data One hundred sixty-four primary care visits from seven health care systems (2010-2011). Study Design Presence or absence of discussion about depressive symptoms, treatment recommendations, and follow-up was measured using patient and clinician postvisit questionnaires, chart review, and coding of audio transcripts. Sensitivity and specificity of indirect measures compared to transcripts were calculated. Principal Findings Patient report was sensitive for mood (83 percent) and sleep (83 percent) but not suicide (55 percent). Patient report was specific for suicide (86 percent) but not for other symptoms (44-75 percent). Clinician report was sensitive for all symptoms (83-98 percent) and specific for sleep, memory, and suicide (80-87 percent), but not for other symptoms (45-48 percent). Chart review was not sensitive for symptoms (50-73 percent), but it was specific for sleep, memory, and suicide (88-96 percent). All indirect measures had low sensitivity for treatment recommendations (patient report: 24-42 percent, clinician report 38-50 percent, chart review 49-67 percent) but high specificity (89-96 percent). For definite follow-up plans, all three indirect measures were sensitive (82-96 percent) but not specific (40-57 percent). Conclusions Clinician report and chart review generally had the most favorable sensitivity and specificity for measuring discussion of depressive symptoms and treatment recommendations, respectively.",
keywords = "depression, Patient-clinician communication, primary care, quality",
author = "Henry, {Stephen G} and Bo Feng and Peter Franks and Bell, {Robert A} and Tancredi, {Daniel J} and Dustin Gottfeld and Kravitz, {Richard L}",
year = "2014",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/1475-6773.12187",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "49",
pages = "1684--1700",
journal = "Health Services Research",
issn = "0017-9124",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Methods for assessing patient-clinician communication about depression in primary care

T2 - What you see depends on how you look

AU - Henry, Stephen G

AU - Feng, Bo

AU - Franks, Peter

AU - Bell, Robert A

AU - Tancredi, Daniel J

AU - Gottfeld, Dustin

AU - Kravitz, Richard L

PY - 2014/10/1

Y1 - 2014/10/1

N2 - Objective To advance research on depression communication and treatment by comparing assessments of communication about depression from patient report, clinician report, and chart review to assessments from transcripts. Data One hundred sixty-four primary care visits from seven health care systems (2010-2011). Study Design Presence or absence of discussion about depressive symptoms, treatment recommendations, and follow-up was measured using patient and clinician postvisit questionnaires, chart review, and coding of audio transcripts. Sensitivity and specificity of indirect measures compared to transcripts were calculated. Principal Findings Patient report was sensitive for mood (83 percent) and sleep (83 percent) but not suicide (55 percent). Patient report was specific for suicide (86 percent) but not for other symptoms (44-75 percent). Clinician report was sensitive for all symptoms (83-98 percent) and specific for sleep, memory, and suicide (80-87 percent), but not for other symptoms (45-48 percent). Chart review was not sensitive for symptoms (50-73 percent), but it was specific for sleep, memory, and suicide (88-96 percent). All indirect measures had low sensitivity for treatment recommendations (patient report: 24-42 percent, clinician report 38-50 percent, chart review 49-67 percent) but high specificity (89-96 percent). For definite follow-up plans, all three indirect measures were sensitive (82-96 percent) but not specific (40-57 percent). Conclusions Clinician report and chart review generally had the most favorable sensitivity and specificity for measuring discussion of depressive symptoms and treatment recommendations, respectively.

AB - Objective To advance research on depression communication and treatment by comparing assessments of communication about depression from patient report, clinician report, and chart review to assessments from transcripts. Data One hundred sixty-four primary care visits from seven health care systems (2010-2011). Study Design Presence or absence of discussion about depressive symptoms, treatment recommendations, and follow-up was measured using patient and clinician postvisit questionnaires, chart review, and coding of audio transcripts. Sensitivity and specificity of indirect measures compared to transcripts were calculated. Principal Findings Patient report was sensitive for mood (83 percent) and sleep (83 percent) but not suicide (55 percent). Patient report was specific for suicide (86 percent) but not for other symptoms (44-75 percent). Clinician report was sensitive for all symptoms (83-98 percent) and specific for sleep, memory, and suicide (80-87 percent), but not for other symptoms (45-48 percent). Chart review was not sensitive for symptoms (50-73 percent), but it was specific for sleep, memory, and suicide (88-96 percent). All indirect measures had low sensitivity for treatment recommendations (patient report: 24-42 percent, clinician report 38-50 percent, chart review 49-67 percent) but high specificity (89-96 percent). For definite follow-up plans, all three indirect measures were sensitive (82-96 percent) but not specific (40-57 percent). Conclusions Clinician report and chart review generally had the most favorable sensitivity and specificity for measuring discussion of depressive symptoms and treatment recommendations, respectively.

KW - depression

KW - Patient-clinician communication

KW - primary care

KW - quality

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84908260164&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84908260164&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/1475-6773.12187

DO - 10.1111/1475-6773.12187

M3 - Article

VL - 49

SP - 1684

EP - 1700

JO - Health Services Research

JF - Health Services Research

SN - 0017-9124

IS - 5

ER -