The Y-OQ-12: psychosocial screening of youth in primary care medicine using items from an outcome measure

Adolescent Risk Screening Instruments for Primary Care: An Integrative Review Utilizing the Donabedian Framework

Adolescent risk-taking behavior choices can affect future health outcomes. The purpose of this integrative literature review is to evaluate adolescent risk screening instruments available to primary care providers in the United States using the Donabedian Framework of structure, process, and outcome. To examine the literature concerning multidimensional adolescent risk screening instruments available in the United States for use in the primary care setting, library searches, ancestry searches, and Internet searches were conducted. Library searches included a systematic search of the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Academic Search Premier, Health Source Nursing Academic Ed, Medline, PsycINFO, the Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, and PubMed databases with CINAHL headings using the following Boolean search terms: "primary care" and screening and pediatric. Criteria for inclusion consisted of studies conducted in the United States that involved broad multidimensional adolescent risk screening instruments for use in the pediatric primary care setting. Instruments that focused solely on one unhealthy behavior were excluded, as were developmental screens and screens not validated or designed for all ages of adolescents. In all 25 manuscripts reviewed, 16 screens met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study. These 16 screens were examined for factors associated with the Donabedian structure-process-outcome model. This review revealed that many screens contain structural issues related to cost and length that inhibit provider implementation in the primary care setting. Process limitations regarding the report method and administration format were also identified. The Pediatric Symptom Checklist was identified as a free, short tool that is valid and reliable.

Annual Research Review: Building a science of personalized intervention for youth mental health

BACKGROUND

Within the past decade, health care service and research priorities have shifted from evidence-based medicine to personalized medicine. In mental health care, a similar shift to personalized intervention may boost the effectiveness and clinical utility of empirically supported therapies (ESTs). The emerging science of personalized intervention will need to encompass evidence-based methods for determining which problems to target and in which order, selecting treatments and deciding whether and how to combine them, and informing ongoing clinical decision-making through monitoring of treatment response throughout episodes of care. We review efforts to develop these methods, drawing primarily from psychotherapy research with youths. Then we propose strategies for building a science of personalized intervention in youth mental health.

FINDINGS

The growing evidence base for personalizing interventions includes research on therapies adapted for specific subgroups; treatments targeting youths' environments; modular therapies; sequential, multiple assignment, randomized trials; measurement feedback systems; meta-analyses comparing treatments for specific patient characteristics; data-mining decision trees; and individualized metrics.

CONCLUSION

The science of personalized intervention presents questions that can be addressed in several ways. First, to evaluate and organize personalized interventions, we propose modifying the system used to evaluate and organize ESTs. Second, to help personalizing research keep pace with practice needs, we propose exploiting existing randomized trial data to inform personalizing approaches, prioritizing the personalizing approaches likely to have the greatest impact, conducting more idiographic research, and studying tailoring strategies in usual care. Third, to encourage clinicians' use of personalized intervention research to inform their practice, we propose expanding outlets for research summaries and case studies, developing heuristic frameworks that incorporate personalizing approaches into practice, and integrating personalizing approaches into service delivery systems. Finally, to build a richer understanding of how and why treatments work for particular individuals, we propose accelerating research to identify mediators within and across RCTs, to isolate mechanisms of change, and to inform the shift from diagnoses to psychopathological processes. This ambitious agenda for personalized intervention science, although challenging, could markedly alter the nature of mental health care and the benefit provided to youths and families.