Search

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can promote person-centered biopsychosocial health care by measuring outcomes that matter to patients, including functioning and well-being. Data support feasibility and acceptability of PRO administration as part of routine clinical care, but less is known about its effects on population health, including detection of unmet healthcare needs. Our objectives were to examine differences in rates of clinically significant depression across sociodemographic groups and clinical settings from universal depression screens in a large health system, estimate the number of patients with untreated depression detected by screenings, and examine associations between biopsychosocial PROs—physical, psychological, and social health.Methods: We analyzed data from over 200,000 adult patients who completed depression screens—either PROMIS (Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) or PHQ-2/9—as part of routine outpatient care.Results: Depression screens were positive in 14.2% of the sample, with more positive screens among younger vs. older adults, women vs. men, non-White vs. White, and Hispanics vs. non-Hispanics. These same sociodemographic indicators, as well as completing screening in primary care (vs. specialty care) were also associated with greater likelihood of detected depression in the medical record.Discussion: Universal screening for depression symptoms throughout a large health system appears acceptable and has the potential to detect depression in diverse patient populations outside of behavioral health. Expanded delivery of PROs to include physical and social health as well as depression should be explored to develop a clinically-relevant model for addressing patients' biopsychosocial needs in an integrated fashion across the health system.

Women are often the victims of intimate partner violence (IPV). Though China has established its first statute against domestic violence, the service developments for victims fall behind. It is important to assess community members' perceptions of what causes IPV to create interventions to prevent and address IPV. This study completed the Short Explanatory Model Interview (SEMI) among a subset sample from a large epidemiology study in rural Sichuan China. The social ecological model was applied to analyze qualitative interviews. Among 339 participants, the average age was 46.01 ± 12.42 years old. There were 31.86% of them had been educated, 14.75% of them had migrant worker partners, and 49.26% of them had experienced violence from their partners in the last year. There were 252 participants attributed IPV to individual factors, and they primarily discussed the social characteristics, behaviors, personalities or even health problems of the husband or the wife in the vignette. Under this theme, there were 86 participants blaming the victim for being anxious, social disconnectedness or lazy; and there were 166 participants blaming to the perpetrator being abusive, irresponsibility, lack of understanding, and cheating. There were 44 women believed the cause was relational, in which there were 41 participants attributed the problem to the broken relationship between the couple and three participants attributed to the lack of support. There were 28 participants believed the cause was communal and societal, such as being poor, family problems, fate, and believed IPV was a common scene. There were 15 participants could not identify the cause of IPV. These participants usually provided very brief responses and barely had insight on violent behaviors or confidence in discussing the cause. Our findings offer a direction for understanding the rural Chinese women's beliefs about the etiology of IPV to better develop interventions which must consider raising a public awareness campaign about the risk factors of IPV and focus on reducing self-blame among victims.

Family and intimate partner violence and abuse (FIPV) is a critical public health problem with repercussions for mental and physical health. FIPV exposure also is associated with social difficulties such as low socioeconomic status, legal issues, poor access to employment and education, housing instability, and difficulty meeting other basic needs. As a biopsychosocial problem, one discipline alone cannot adequately address FIPV. While individuals who experience FIPV traditionally seek respite, care and safety through domestic violence shelters, social services or courts, they also often present to health care settings. Building on the medical-legal partnership model with critical input from a community advisory board of individuals with lived experiences of FIPV, we implemented a person-centered approach in the health care context to cohesively integrate legal, safety, social, psychological and physical health needs and concerns. The purpose of this paper is to describe the Healing through Health, Education, Advocacy and Law (HEAL) Collaborative for individuals who have experienced psychological abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, or neglect related to child maltreatment, intimate partner violence, and/or elder abuse, and review our real-world challenges and successes. We describe our interprofessional team collaboration and our pragmatic biopsychosocial framework for bringing together: professional and stakeholder perspectives; psychological, medical, legal, and personal perspectives; and clinical, evidence-based, and educational perspectives. There is no doubt that creating a program with biopsychosocial components like HEAL requires professionals appreciating each other's contributions and the need to begin working from a common goal. Furthermore, such a program could not be successful without the contributions of individuals with the lived experience we seek to treat, coupled with the external health care clinicians' input. We describe lessons learned to date in an effort to ease the burden for those seeking to implement such a program. Lessons include HEAL's more recent clinical adaptions to serve patients both in-person and via telehealth in the wake of COVID-19.

Information seeking is essential for effective patient-centered decision-making. However, prostate cancer patients report a gap between information needed and information received. The importance of different information sources for treatment decision remains unclear. Thus, using the Comprehensive Model of Health Information (CMIS) framework, we assessed the antecedent factors, information carrier factors, and information-seeking activities in localized prostate cancer patients. Data were collected via semistructured one-on-one, interviews and structured survey. Men with localized prostate cancer were recruited from two urban health-care centers. Following the interview, participants completed a survey about sources that were helpful in learning about prostate cancer treatment and decision-making. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and subjected to a thematic analysis using NVivo 10. Fifty localized prostate cancer survivors completed the interviews and surveys. Important antecedent factors that were observed were age, marital status, uncertainty, anxiety, caregiver burden, and out-of-pocket expenses. We identified complexity, magnitude, and reliability as information carrier characteristics. Preferred sources for information were health providers, medical websites, and pamphlets from the doctor’s office. These sources were also perceived as most helpful for decision-making. Urologists, urological oncologists, and radiation/radiation oncologists were important sources of information and helpful in decision-making. Prostate cancer patients obtained information from multiple sources. Most prostate cancer patients make patient-centered choices by incorporating personal factors and medical information. By considering factors that influence patients’ treatment decisions, health-care providers can enhance the patient-centeredness of care. Multiple strategies and interventions are necessary for disseminating valid, reliable, and unbiased information to prostate cancer patients to facilitate informed decisions.

Introduction: Many primary care patients with multimorbidity (two or more chronic conditions) and depression or anxiety have day-to-day challenges that affect health outcomes, such as having financial or housing concerns, or dealing with social or emotional stressors. Yet, primary care providers (PCPs) are often unaware of patients' daily challenges coping with chronic disease. We developed Customized Care, an intervention, to address the barriers to effective communication about patient's day-to-day challenges. Methods: In this report we describe the rationale and design of a randomized clinical pilot study to examine the effect of Customized Care on patient-PCP communication and patient health outcomes, including depression, anxiety and functional outcomes. Customized Care comprises two components: (1) a computer-based discussion prioritization tool (DPT) designed to empower patients to communicate their health related priorities; and (2) a customized question prompt list (QPL) tailored to these priorities. Primary care clinic patients and PCPs participated in the study, which consisted of in-person patient assessments, audio recording and transcription of the patient-PCP office visit, and follow-up patient assessments by phone. Results: We describe study participant demographics and development of a coding manual to assess communication within the office visit. Participants were recruited from an urban primary care clinic. Sixty patients and 12 PCPs were enrolled over six months. Conclusions: With better communication about everyday challenges, patients and PCPs can have more informed discussions about health care options that positively influence patient outcomes. We expect that Customized Care will improve patient-PCP communication about day-to-day challenges, which can lead to better health outcomes.

Objectives. To describe the development of our Patient Preferences for Prostate Cancer Care (PreProCare) tool to aid patient-centered treatment decision among localized prostate cancer patients. Methods. We incorporated patient and provider experiences to develop a patient preference elicitation tool using adaptive conjoint analysis. Our patient-centered approach used systematic literature review, semistructured patient interviews, and provider focus groups to determine the treatment attributes most important for decision making. The resulting computer-based PreProCare tool was pilot tested in a clinical setting. Results. A systematic review of 56 articles published between 1995 and 2015 yielded survival, cancer recurrence, side effects, and complications as attributes of treatment options. We conducted one-on-one interviews with 50 prostate cancer survivors and 5 focus groups of providers. Patients reported anxiety, depression, treatment specifics, and caregiver burden as important for decision making. Providers identified clinical characteristics as important attribute. Input from stakeholders’ advisory group, physicians, and researchers helped finalize 15 attributes for our PreProCare preference assessment tool. Conclusion. The PreProCare tool was developed using a patient-centered approach and may be a feasible and acceptable preference clarification intervention for localized prostate cancer patients. The PreProCare tool may translate into higher participant engagement and self-efficacy, consistent with patients’ personal values.

In this paper, we report findings regarding the prevalence of expressed distress and depressive conditions among women living in a rural region of Sichuan Province. As well, we know of no data among women in rural China that examine whether "depression," as categorically defined in classifications such as the DSM, adequately captures the expressed distress and symptomatic complaints of women in rural China.A multistage sampling method was employed to recruit the target population. The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) was used to measure distress symptoms, and MINI International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) was employed to determine the prevalence of diagnosable depression and other disorders.Among 1898 rural women, 12.4% (236) scored ≥16 on the CES-D, indicative of distress, and a subset of 7.7% (146) had scores ≥21, highly suggestive of a clinically significant disorder. We found that 49.8% women with ≥16 CES-D score were identified as showing features consistent with a current major depressive episode (MDE) vs. 1.9% in a sample of randomly selected women with