Identifying Depression in a National Sample of Caregivers Investigated in Regard to Their Child’s Welfare
Abstract
Objectives
Identifying depression is the first step in provision of treatment across service settings but can be challenging for non–mental health providers. This study examined how caseworker identification of depression among parents and other caregivers during the child welfare investigation or assessment process varies as a function of agency, caseworker, and case characteristics.
Methods
Data were drawn from the second National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW II), a national probability sample of children referred to U.S. child welfare agencies between February 2008 and April 2009. The study sample comprised 889 parents and other caregivers whose children initially remained at home and whose confidential responses on the World Health Organization Composite International Diagnostic Interview Short Form indicated a major depressive episode within the past 12 months. Weighted logistic regression examined predictors of caseworker identification of caregiver depression at the agency, caseworker, and case levels.
Results
Investigative caseworkers identified mental health needs of only 38% of caregivers. Caseworkers were more likely to identify caregiver mental health needs when child welfare agency policy specified use of a standardized mental health assessment and when the maltreatment report came from a health or mental health provider versus other sources, such as teachers or family members. Investigative caseloads were negatively associated with identifying depression.
Conclusions
Structured mental health assessments may help non–mental health professionals identify mental health needs among vulnerable populations.
Parental depression disproportionately affects economically and socially disadvantaged populations and poses significant risks to family functioning and child well-being (1–4). Depressed parents and other caregivers are more likely to behave aggressively toward their children and use more disengaged, withdrawn, or intrusive parenting styles (5–8). They are also less likely to adhere to or benefit from recommended treatment programs and to bring their children for recommended preventive health services (9–12). The cumulative negative effect on child well-being can be severe. Compared with children whose caregivers are not depressed, children of depressed caregivers exhibit decreased social competence, experience more emotional and behavioral problems in adolescence and early adulthood, and incur greater health expenditures (13–16).
Children involved with child protective services (CPS) are at particularly high risk of being adversely affected by parental depression because their parents often experience domestic violence or other prior trauma that can exacerbate effects of parental depression on child safety and well-being (17,18). For many of these families, CPS involvement represents an opportunity to connect with needed services. Evidence-based treatment can reduce or eliminate symptoms of depression (19–22). Remission of parental depression has in turn been linked to improvements to children’s behavioral health symptoms and functioning (23–25). Unfortunately, studies of community samples suggest that only 30% of depressed adults receive any treatment for their illness (26). Among parents and other caregivers involved with child welfare, treatment rates may be as low as 20% (27).
Identifying caregiver depression is the first step in provision of treatment across service settings but can be challenging for child welfare caseworkers. Depression can manifest as anxiety or somatic conditions, which caseworkers generally receive little or no training in how to identify (28–31). Fear of losing custody of their children may also affect caregivers’ willingness to report mental health needs (32,33). As a result of these and other factors, caregiver depression is often underidentified in a child welfare investigation or an assessment process (34).
To provide policy makers and administrators with information useful in improving the frontline investigation, this study examined agency practices, caseworker attributes, and case characteristics related to child welfare caseworker identification of parental depression. Child welfare agency practices hypothesized to positively affect caseworker identification of depression include use of standardized mental health assessments in the investigation process and strength of collaboration with local mental health providers. Standardized mental health screening and assessment tools can improve diagnosis of parental depression and aid in developing appropriate treatment plans (35). Although the effect on caregivers has not been previously examined, child welfare agency collaboration with local mental health providers has been shown to improve children’s access to mental health services (36,37). Prior research has also found that colocation of child welfare caseworkers and credentialed alcoholism and substance abuse counselors can facilitate identification of caregiver substance use and subsequent treatment referrals (38).
Caseworker attributes hypothesized to affect identification of caregiver depression include education, job tenure (experience), and caseload (balancing competing demands). Although many caseworkers lack the clinical and communication competencies necessary to detect caregiver depression (28), caseworkers with a formal education in social work or psychology may be better prepared to investigate complex family needs than caseworkers without such training (39). Job tenure and caseload may also influence identification of caregiver needs through their effects on caseworkers’ ability to effectively engage with families and respond to their needs (40). Manifestation of depression can be subtle, and eliciting candid information about mental health status can be challenging. These skills may evolve over time as caseworkers gain experience working with families; hence, investigative caseworkers’ years in child welfare are hypothesized to be positively associated with detection of caregiver depression. In contrast, caseworkers with excessive caseloads may overlook caregiver depression because they are forced to conduct superficial investigations (41). Thus, in this study, investigative caseworker caseload was hypothesized to be negatively associated with caseworker identification of caregiver depression. Finally, at the case level, maltreatment reports initiated by health care providers were hypothesized to increase identification of caregiver depression because such professionals are more likely to routinely screen for depression and to communicate concerns about caregiver mental health needs to caseworkers (42–44).
Methods
Data sources
Data were drawn from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW), the only national, longitudinal study of families subject to maltreatment investigations or assessments conducted by CPS (45). NSCAW includes two cohorts of children spaced approximately ten years apart. Given significant changes in child welfare practices over the past decade, we used data from only the second cohort (NSCAW II). A two-stage cluster-sampling approach was used in which primary sampling units were first selected, with each corresponding to the geographic area served by a single CPS agency. Within these sampling units, a total of 5,873 children from infancy to age 17.5 years were sampled from all CPS investigations or assessments conducted between February 2008 and April 2009.
Baseline (wave I) data collection occurred between March 2008 and September 2009, on average approximately four months after the completion of the child welfare investigation. Information on child welfare agency practices was obtained through structured interviews with directors of each of the 86 child welfare agencies in the NSCAW II sample. Detailed assessments of family context and well-being were collected through structured, face-to-face interviews with current caregivers, children, and their investigative caseworkers. To assess their mental health status, permanent primary caregivers whose children initially remained in their home after the investigation were administered a series of validated instruments via audio-computer-assisted self-interview, a methodology shown to increase reporting of sensitive behaviors (46).
Investigative caseworkers were separately asked to provide information on their background and work practices, including caseload, as well as their assessment of a given family’s behavioral health; this entailed referring to families’ case records to increase information accuracy (45). Finally, maltreatment report source and type were obtained from the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System; these administrative data were linked to NSCAW with families’ permission (47). [Additional information on NSCAW procedures is provided in the online data supplement to this article and is extensively described elsewhere (45,48).]
Given our interest in identifying parental depression, we restricted the study sample to permanent, primary caregivers whose confidential, self-reported responses to a validated screening instrument indicated major depression within the past 12 months. A total of 889, or 23%, of permanent, primary caregivers met these criteria.
Measures
Caregiver depression.
Caregiver depression was assessed with the World Health Organization Composite International Diagnostic Interview Short Form (CIDI-SF) (49), a standardized interview that screens for mental disorders with criteria established in DSM-IV (50,51). The CIDI-SF has been validated for use with the general population, with an overall diagnostic classification accuracy of 93% for major depressive episodes (49). Consistent with the suggested CIDI-SF scoring method (52), caregivers were classified as having a major depressive episode if they reported a two-week period during the preceding 12 months in which either a dysphoric mood or anhedonia was experienced to a significant degree as well as at least three other symptoms of major depression.
Identification of caregiver mental health treatment needs.
Investigative caseworkers’ identification of caregiver mental health treatment needs was operationalized as a dichotomous variable, set to 1 if the investigative caseworker indicated that the permanent primary caregiver needed services for “an emotional, psychological, or other mental health problem like depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, etc.” in the past 12 months and set to 0 otherwise.
Agency practices.
Agency use of standardized mental health assessments was indicated by a dichotomous variable, set to 1 if the director responded yes to a question asking whether the child welfare agency “has used a standardized mental health assessment for parents during the investigation process” and set to 0 if the agency director responded no. Consistent with literature suggesting that having a combination of different interorganizational arrangements reflects stronger overall collaboration between agencies (53,54), strength of ties was measured as the number of distinct relationships each child welfare agency director reported having with mental health providers. Examined relationships included having a memorandum of understanding or other formal interagency agreement, cross-training of staff, joint budgeting or resource allocation, and child welfare agency colocation with a mental health partner.
Caseworker attributes.
Caseworker education was indicated by whether the caseworker’s highest degree was a non–social work bachelor’s degree or less (referent) or a bachelor of social work (B.S.W.), a master of social work (M.S.W.), or other graduate degree. Caseworker experience was operationalized as the number of years the caseworker reported working in child welfare. Caseload was defined as the average number of new investigations per month assigned to the caseworker.
Case characteristics.
Maltreatment report source was categorized according to whether the initial maltreatment allegation was made by medical or mental health personnel, or by another type of reporter, such as an educator, a social service worker, or a nonprofessional (47). We also controlled for several other factors that might affect caseworker ability to identify caregiver depression, including the most serious type of alleged maltreatment (6,55); the presence of a co-occurring substance use disorder (56–58); the caregiver’s race-ethnicity, including African American, Hispanic, or other, which included American Indian or Asian, Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander (59); the caregiver’s biological or functional relationship with the child (60); and child age (26). Caregivers were identified as having a co-occurring substance use disorder if their confidential self-reported responses on either of two validated instruments, the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) or the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST-20), indicated harmful use or dependence (61,62). Caregivers whose AUDIT scores were 5 or higher or whose DAST-20 scores were 6 or higher were considered to meet this criterion (63–66).
Analyses
Although NSCAW data have a hierarchical structure, our sample did not meet criteria for use of multilevel modeling (67–69). Consequently, we conducted a single-level logistic regression model using the Stata 12.0 “svy” module, which accounts for probability weights and stratification as well as correlations in outcomes across families served by the same child welfare agencies. Phi and biserial correlations between independent variables were all less than .4 and variance inflation factors were less than 2.5, below the threshold at which multicollinearity might be a concern in logistic regression. Twenty multiply imputed data sets were created with the multivariate normal imputation method within the Stata 12.0 “MI” module to handle missing data. Weighted t tests conducted after imputation did not reveal any statistically significant differences between imputed and nonimputed variables; therefore, only imputed results are provided below.
Results
As shown in Table 1, although all of the caregivers in the sample had CIDI-SF scores indicating a major depressive episode in the past 12 months, investigative caseworkers identified mental health needs of only 38% of those caregivers. Twenty-five percent of caregivers were investigated by CPS agencies whose directors reported agency use of a standardized mental health assessment during investigation. For approximately 11% of cases in our sample, the initial maltreatment report was made by medical or mental health providers. Most of these cases (88%) were reported by medical rather than mental health providers, and over half involved children less than one year of age.
| Descriptive statistics (weighted M±SD or %) | Logistic regression analysisa | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | OR | SE | 95% CI | |
| Caseworker identification of caregiver mental health needs | 38 | |||
| Agency | ||||
| Use of standardized assessment tool | 25 | 1.68* | .43 | 1.01–2.80 |
| Ties with mental health providers (M±SD) | 1.88±.96 | .88 | .09 | .71–1.09 |
| Caseworkers | ||||
| Education | ||||
| Bachelor’s degree or less (reference) | 55 | |||
| Bachelor of social work | 18 | 1.29 | .45 | .64–2.60 |
| Master of social work | 16 | 1.61 | .61 | .75–3.45 |
| Other graduate degree | 11 | .91 | .34 | .43–1.93 |
| Years in child welfare (M±SD) | 7.10±5.44 | 1.02 | .02 | .98–1.07 |
| New cases to investigate (M±SD per month) | 12.24±7.96 | .98* | .01 | .97–.99 |
| Case | ||||
| Source of maltreatment report | ||||
| Medical or mental health provider | 11 | 2.36* | .97 | 1.04–5.39 |
| Other (reference) | 89 | |||
| Alleged maltreatment | ||||
| Neglect (reference) | 34 | |||
| Physical abuse | 16 | 1.19 | .45 | .56–2.55 |
| Sexual abuse | 9 | .75 | .36 | .29–1.96 |
| Substance abuse or dependence | 13 | .81 | .28 | .40–1.62 |
| Domestic violence | 9 | .51 | .19 | .25–1.05 |
| Other type of abuse | 19 | 1.67 | .56 | .86–3.25 |
| Caregivers | ||||
| Co-occurring substance use disorder | 19 | 1.51 | .38 | .91–2.51 |
| Race-ethnicity | ||||
| White (reference) | 57 | |||
| African American | 15 | .85 | .28 | .44–1.65 |
| Hispanic | 22 | .94 | .22 | .59–1.50 |
| Other | 6 | 2.47* | 1.08 | 1.03–5.93 |
| Relationship to child | ||||
| Mother (reference) | 89 | |||
| Father | 5 | .84 | .40 | .32–2.17 |
| Other | 6 | 1.35 | .49 | .66–2.78 |
| Child age (M±SD years) | 7.25±4.59 | .99 | .03 | .94–1.05 |
a
Average relative variance increase=.01
*p<.05
To supplement multiple logistic regression results in Table 1, we also calculated predicted probabilities for all statistically significant variables to illustrate the magnitude of the association with caseworker identification of caregiver depression (70). In keeping with our hypothesis, agency use of a standardized mental health assessment for parents in the investigation process was associated with a 45% higher probability that caseworkers would identify caregiver depression. Also as hypothesized, each additional case assigned per month to investigative caseworkers decreased by 1% their probability of identifying caregiver depression. The probability of identifying caregiver depression increased by 21% when the initial maltreatment report was made by medical or mental health providers rather than by social workers, law enforcement, educators, or nonprofessional sources (including relatives, friends, and neighbors). Contrary to our hypothesis, child welfare agency ties with mental health providers were not associated with detection of depression. Finally, among the measures included as covariates, caseworkers’ probability of identifying depression increased by 22% when caregivers were American Indian, Asian, Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander rather than non-Hispanic white.
Discussion
To the best of our knowledge, this study was the first to examine factors associated with child welfare caseworker identification of caregiver depression. Data from this large, national sample of children referred to CPS indicate that even among families deemed sufficiently low risk to retain custody of their children, rates of major depression are disproportionately high: 23% of caregivers had CIDI-SF scores indicating a major depressive episode within the past 12 months, a rate more than three times higher than the estimated 12-month prevalence of major depression in the general population (71). Identification of caregiver depression is a critical first step to connecting these vulnerable families to appropriate treatment. However, identifying depression may be challenging for caseworkers, who identified mental health needs for less than 40% of caregivers in our sample. This finding is consistent with prior research suggesting substantial underidentification of mental health needs among families involved with the child welfare system (27,72) and represents a missed opportunity for intervention.
Efforts to improve identification of depression in this population must take into account the current child welfare context. Caseworkers face significant pressure to close cases quickly, which may limit their ability to detect and meaningfully respond to families’ service needs (41,73). Their training in mental health is also often inadequate, further limiting their ability to identify parental depression (28,73). Given these constraints, validated screening instruments may help caseworkers quickly identify families in need of further assessment. Our findings indicate that caseworkers were more likely to identify caregiver depression when agencies used standardized mental health assessments during the investigative process. These findings are consistent with research in health care settings indicating that clinicians are more effective at detecting depressive symptoms when using structured clinical interviews or screeners (74–76) and reinforce the importance of such tools in identifying mental disorders. Most screening and assessment tools currently used during child welfare investigation do not directly address caregiver mental health or do so only through a single, binary item (77,78). Brief, valid, and easily scored and interpreted measures of depression, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire (79–81), have been developed that could be readily incorporated into the investigation process and administered by caseworkers and other personnel during office, clinic, or home visits. Inclusion of such measures in agency policies may play an important role in their use.
Although prior research has found that the strength of child welfare agency ties with local providers is associated with families’ service access and outcomes (36,37,82), such ties were not significant in this study. It is possible that practices such as cross-training and colocation are important for facilitating service access and coordinating care only after need has already been identified. NSCAW data do not include information on the purpose of collaborative ties; further research is needed to examine the extent to which collaboration with local mental health providers may be of use to caseworkers during their investigations.
The findings do, however, suggest the important role that medical and mental health professionals can play in identifying parental depression (42). These professionals are more likely to have the clinical competencies necessary to identify depression and may communicate this information when reporting child maltreatment. Although such professionals report a relatively small proportion of maltreatment cases (8% nationally) (83), it is also possible that they encounter the highest-risk families. Further research is needed to understand associations between maltreatment report source and caseworker identification of parental depression.
Although the magnitude of association between caseload and caseworker identification of depression was small, findings are also consistent with prior research suggesting that high caseloads can compromise casework practices (41). Constrained resources and high turnover make it difficult for agency managers to reduce the number of cases assigned to each worker; however, the high potential costs of not identifying families’ needs argue for making adequate staffing a high priority.
The findings also indicate the need for attention to potential effects of caregiver race-ethnicity on caseworker identification of mental health needs. In this study, investigative caseworkers were significantly more likely to identify depression among American Indians, Asians, Hawaiians, or Pacific Islanders than among non-Hispanic whites. Although the explanation for differential identification of depression in this subgroup is unclear, prior research has demonstrated disparities in mental health access among Asians as well as non-Latino whites, African Americans, and Latinos (84). Additional research is needed to better understand this phenomenon and its potential effect on service access.
Several limitations constrain this study. First, we relied on caregiver responses to the CIDI-SF to identify depression. Although it is validated for use with the general population (49), this instrument was developed for screening rather than for diagnostic purposes, and it has not been specifically tested with child welfare or minority populations. Contextual or cultural differences may affect the sensitivity and specificity of results; for example, caregivers involved with child welfare may conceal certain behaviors, warranting the use of lower cutpoints than those applied here. In addition, only the depression scales of the CIDI-SF were included in NSCAW, precluding the ability to examine a wider range of mental disorders. Given that caseworkers were asked whether caregivers had any “mental health problem like depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, etc.” but caregivers were asked only about depression, we were also unable to determine the accuracy with which caseworkers identified caregiver depression. Nonetheless, we believe that focusing on major depression is still critical given its high prevalence among caregivers involved in child welfare and its impact on both caregivers and children. Finally, NSCAW did not ask caseworkers about training in the use of standardized mental health assessments, which could also have affected how effectively they used these tools.
Conclusions
Child welfare investigations focus on child safety but also represent important opportunities to identify and address family needs. Parental depression is underidentified in this high-risk population. Use of standardized screening and assessment tools may improve caseworker identification of caregivers’ mental health needs. Inclusion of such measures in agency practice directives could help instantiate their use.
Acknowledgments and disclosures
This study was funded by National Institute on Drug Abuse grant 1R03DA032863-01 and includes data from the National Survey on Child and Adolescent Well-Being, which was developed under contract with the Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (ACYF/DHHS). The data were provided by the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect. The information and opinions expressed herein reflect solely the position of the authors. Nothing herein should be construed to indicate the support or endorsement of the content by ACYF/DHHS.
The authors report no competing interests.
Supplementary Material
Supplementary Material (911_ds001.pdf)
- View/Download
- 42.01 KB
References
1.
Cortes RC, Fleming CB, Mason WA, et al.: Risk factors linking maternal depressed mood to growth in adolescent substance use. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 17:49–64, 2009
2.
Garber J, Ciesla JA, McCauley E, et al.: Remission of depression in parents: links to healthy functioning in their children. Child Development 82:226–243, 2011
3.
Grupp-Phelan J, Whitaker RC, Naish AB: Depression in mothers of children presenting for emergency and primary care: impact on mothers’ perceptions of caring for their children. Ambulatory Pediatrics 3:142–146, 2003
4.
Chung EK, McCollum KF, Elo IT, et al.: Maternal depressive symptoms and infant health practices among low-income women. Pediatrics 113:e523–e529, 2004
5.
Callender KA, Olson SL, Choe DE, et al.: The effects of parental depressive symptoms, appraisals, and physical punishment on later child externalizing behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 40:471–483, 2012
6.
Conron KJ, Beardslee W, Koenen KC, et al.: A longitudinal study of maternal depression and child maltreatment in a national sample of families investigated by child protective services. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 163:922–930, 2009
7.
Lovejoy MC, Graczyk PA, O’Hare E, et al.: Maternal depression and parenting behavior: a meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review 20:561–592, 2000
8.
Kavanaugh M, Halterman JS, Montes G, et al.: Maternal depressive symptoms are adversely associated with prevention practices and parenting behaviors for preschool children. Ambulatory Pediatrics 6:32–37, 2006
9.
Evans DL, Charney DS, Lewis L, et al.: Mood disorders in the medically ill: scientific review and recommendations. Biological Psychiatry 58:175–189, 2005
10.
Greenfield BL, Venner KL, Kelly JF, et al.: The impact of depression on abstinence self-efficacy and substance use outcomes among emerging adults in residential treatment. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 26:246–254, 2012
11.
Stevens J, Ammerman R, Putnam F, et al.: Facilitators and barriers to engagement in home visitation: a qualitative analysis of maternal, provider, and supervisor data. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma 11:75–93, 2005
12.
Sills MR, Shetterly S, Xu S, et al.: Association between parental depression and children’s health care use. Pediatrics 119:e829–e836, 2007
13.
Ashman SB, Dawson G, Panagiotides H: Trajectories of maternal depression over 7 years: relations with child psychophysiology and behavior and role of contextual risks. Development and Psychopathology 20:55–77, 2008
14.
Bagner DM, Pettit JW, Lewinsohn PM, et al.: Effect of maternal depression on child behavior: a sensitive period? Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 49:699–707, 2010
15.
Olfson M, Marcus SC, Druss B, et al.: Parental depression, child mental health problems, and health care utilization. Medical Care 41:716–721, 2003
16.
Casey P, Goolsby S, Berkowitz C, et al.: Maternal depression, changing public assistance, food security, and child health status. Pediatrics 113:298–304, 2004
17.
Whitaker RC, Orzol SM, Kahn RS: Maternal mental health, substance use, and domestic violence in the year after delivery and subsequent behavior problems in children at age 3 years. Archives of General Psychiatry 63:551–560, 2006
18.
Silverstein M, Augustyn M, Cabral H, et al.: Maternal depression and violence exposure: double jeopardy for child school functioning. Pediatrics 118:e792–e800, 2006
19.
Beardslee WR, Gladstone TR, Wright EJ, et al.: A family-based approach to the prevention of depressive symptoms in children at risk: evidence of parental and child change. Pediatrics 112:e119–e131, 2003
20.
Sanders M, McFarland M: Treatment of depressed mothers with disruptive children: a controlled evaluation of cognitive behavioral family intervention. Behavior Therapy 31:89–112, 2006
21.
Ward EC: Examining differential treatment effects for depression in racial and ethnic minority women: a qualitative systematic review. Journal of the National Medical Association 99:265–274, 2007
22.
Podorefsky DL, McDonald-Dowdell M, Beardslee WR: Adaptation of preventive interventions for a low-income, culturally diverse community. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 40:879–886, 2001
23.
Gunlicks ML, Weissman MM: Change in child psychopathology with improvement in parental depression: a systematic review. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 47:379–389, 2008
24.
Shaw DS, Connell A, Dishion TJ, et al.: Improvements in maternal depression as a mediator of intervention effects on early childhood problem behavior. Development and Psychopathology 21:417–439, 2009
25.
Wickramaratne P, Gameroff MJ, Pilowsky DJ, et al.: Children of depressed mothers 1 year after remission of maternal depression: findings from the STAR*D-Child study. American Journal of Psychiatry 168:593–602, 2011
26.
National Research Council and Institute of Medicine: Depression in Parents, Parenting, and Children: Opportunities to Improve Identification, Treatment, and Prevention. Washington, DC, National Academies Press, 2009
27.
Burns BJ, Mustillo SA, Farmer EM, et al.: Caregiver depression, mental health service use, and child outcomes; in Child Welfare and Child Well-Being: New Perspectives From the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being. Edited by, Webb M, Dowd K, Harden BJ, et al. New York, Oxford University Press, 2010
28.
Hughes R, Rycus J: Issues in risk assessment in child protective services. Journal of Public Child Welfare 1:85–116, 2007
29.
Shlonsky A, Wagner D: The next step: integrating actuarial risk assessment and clinical judgment into an evidence-based practice framework in CPS case management. Children and Youth Services Review 27:409–427, 2005
30.
Barkow K, Heun R, Ustün TB, et al.: Identification of somatic and anxiety symptoms which contribute to the detection of depression in primary health care. European Psychiatry 19:250–257, 2004
31.
Halbreich U, Kahn LS: Atypical depression, somatic depression and anxious depression in women: are they gender-preferred phenotypes? Journal of Affective Disorders 102:245–258, 2007
32.
Fluke JD, Oppenheim E: Getting a grip on systems of care and child welfare using opposable thumbs. Evaluation and Program Planning 33:41–44, 2010
33.
Dumbrill GC: Parental experience of child protection intervention: a qualitative study. Child Abuse and Neglect 30:27–37, 2006
34.
Courtenay W: Are borderline clients underidentified in social agencies? Clinical Social Work Journal 19:309–325, 1991
35.
Davies T, Craig T: Mental health assessment; in ABC of Mental Health, 2nd ed. Edited by, Davies T, Craig T. Hoboken, NJ, Wiley-Blackwell, 2009
36.
Bai Y, Wells R, Hillemeier MM: Coordination between child welfare agencies and mental health service providers, children’s service use, and outcomes. Child Abuse and Neglect 33:372–381, 2009
37.
Hurlburt MS, Leslie LK, Landsverk J, et al.: Contextual predictors of mental health service use among children open to child welfare. Archives of General Psychiatry 61:1217–1224, 2004
38.
Lee E, Esaki N, Greene R: Collocation: integrating child welfare and substance abuse services. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions 9:55–70, 2009
39.
Rittner B, Wodarski J: Differential uses for BSW and MSW educated social workers in child welfare services. Children and Youth Services Review 21:217–238, 1999
40.
DePanfilis D, Girvin H: Investigating child maltreatment in out-of-home care: barriers to effective decision-making. Children and Youth Services Review 27:353–374, 2005
41.
Smith B, Donovan S: Child welfare practice in organizational and institutional context. Social Service Review 77:541–563, 2003
42.
US Preventive Services Task Force: Screening for depression in adults: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Annals of Internal Medicine 151:784–792, 2009
43.
O’Connor EA, Whitlock EP, Beil TL, et al.: Screening for depression in adult patients in primary care settings: a systematic evidence review. Annals of Internal Medicine 151:793–803, 2009
44.
Flaherty EG, Stirling J, American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect: Clinical report: the pediatrician’s role in child maltreatment prevention. Pediatrics 126:833–841, 2010
45.
Dowd K, Dolan M, Wallin J, et al.: National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being II: Data File User’s Manual, Restricted Release Version. Ithaca, NY, National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect, 2010
46.
Turner CF, Ku L, Rogers SM, et al.: Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: increased reporting with computer survey technology. Science 280:867–873, 1998
47.
NSCAW II, Wave 2 Restricted Release Version Appendix. Vol IV. Ithaca, NY, National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect, 2012
48.
Dolan M, Smith K, Casanueva C, et al: NSCAW II Baseline Report: Introduction to NSCAW II. OPRE report 2011-27a. Washington DC, US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 2011
49.
Kessler RC, Andrews G, Mroczek D, et al.: The World Health Organization Composite International Diagnostic Interview short-form (CIDI-SF). International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 7:171–185, 1998
50.
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association, 1994
51.
Kessler RC, Calabrese JR, Farley PA, et al.: Composite International Diagnostic Interview screening scales for DSM-IV anxiety and mood disorders. Psychological Medicine 43:1625–1637, 2013
52.
Walters EE, Kessler RC, Nelson CB, et al: Scoring the World Health Organization’s Composite International Diagnostic Interview Short Form (CIDI-SF). Geneva, World Health Organization, 2002. Available at www.whoint/msa/cidi/CIDISFScoringMemo12-03-02pdf
53.
Ibarra H: Race, opportunity, and diversity of social circles in managerial networks. Academy of Management Journal 38:673–703, 1995
54.
Provan KG, Milward HB: A preliminary theory of interorganizational network effectiveness: a comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly 40:1–33, 1995
55.
Zuravin SJ: Severity of maternal depression and three types of mother-to-child aggression. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 59:377–389, 1989
56.
Merikangas KR, Mehta RL, Molnar BE, et al.: Comorbidity of substance use disorders with mood and anxiety disorders: results of the International Consortium in Psychiatric Epidemiology. Addictive Behaviors 23:893–907, 1998
57.
Swendsen JD, Merikangas KR: The comorbidity of depression and substance use disorders. Clinical Psychology Review 20:173–189, 2000
58.
Howland RH, Rush AJ, Wisniewski SR, et al.: Concurrent anxiety and substance use disorders among outpatients with major depression: clinical features and effect on treatment outcome. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 99:248–260, 2009
59.
Inclan J, Hernandez M: Cross-cultural perspectives and codependence: the case of poor Hispanics. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 62:245–255, 1992
60.
Kane P, Garber J: Parental depression and child externalizing and internalizing symptoms: unique effects of fathers’ symptoms and perceived conflict as a mediator. Journal of Child and Family Studies 18:465–472, 2009
61.
Babor TF, Higgins-Biddle JC, Saunders JB, et al.: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): Guidelines for Use in Primary Care, 2nd ed. Geneva, World Health Organization, Department of Mental Health and Substance Dependence, 2001
62.
Skinner HA: The Drug Abuse Screening Test. Addictive Behaviors 7:363–371, 1982
63.
Reinert DF, Allen JP: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test: an update of research findings. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research 31:185–199, 2007
64.
Yudko E, Lozhkina O, Fouts A: A comprehensive review of the psychometric properties of the Drug Abuse Screening Test. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 32:189–198, 2007
65.
Rumpf HJ, Hapke U, Meyer C, et al.: Screening for alcohol use disorders and at-risk drinking in the general population: psychometric performance of three questionnaires. Alcohol and Alcoholism 37:261–268, 2002
66.
Skinner HA, Goldberg AE: Evidence for a drug dependence syndrome among narcotic users. British Journal of Addiction 81:479–484, 1986
67.
Maas C, Hox J: Robustness issues in multilevel regression analysis. Statistica Neerlandica 58:127–137, 2004
68.
Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS: Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. Thousand Oaks, Calif, Sage, 2002
69.
Moineddin R, Matheson FI, Glazier RH: A simulation study of sample size for multilevel logistic regression models. BMC Medical Research Methodology 7:34–46, 2007
70.
Greene W: Econometric Analysis, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 2000
71.
Wang PS, Lane M, Olfson M, et al.: Twelve-month use of mental health services in the United States: results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry 62:629–640, 2005
72.
Burns BJ, Phillips SD, Wagner HR, et al.: Mental health need and access to mental health services by youths involved with child welfare: a national survey. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 43:960–970, 2004
73.
Karatekin C: A survey of organizations serving child welfare–involved families and children in Hennepin County, MN. Child and Adolescent Social Work, 2013; doi 10.1007/s10560-013-0317-1
74.
Olson AL, Dietrich AJ, Prazar G, et al.: Two approaches to maternal depression screening during well child visits. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics 26:169–176, 2005
75.
Evins GG, Theofrastous JP, Galvin SL: Postpartum depression: a comparison of screening and routine clinical evaluation. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 182:1080–1082, 2000
76.
Friedman DE, Kung DH, Laowattana S, et al.: Identifying depression in epilepsy in a busy clinical setting is enhanced with systematic screening. Seizure 18:429–433, 2009
77.
DePanfilis D, Zuravin SJ: Assessing risk to determine the need for services. Children and Youth Services Review 23:3–20, 2001
78.
Gambrill E, Shlonsky A: The need for comprehensive risk management systems in child welfare. Children and Youth Services Review 23:79–107, 2001
79.
Gjerdingen D, Crow S, McGovern P, et al.: Postpartum depression screening at well-child visits: validity of a 2-question screen and the PHQ-9. Annals of Family Medicine 7:63–70, 2009
80.
Smith MV, Gotman N, Lin H, et al.: Do the PHQ-8 and the PHQ-2 accurately screen for depressive disorders in a sample of pregnant women? General Hospital Psychiatry 32:544–548, 2010
81.
Delgadillo J, Payne S, Gilbody S, et al.: How reliable is depression screening in alcohol and drug users? A validation of brief and ultra-brief questionnaires. Journal of Affective Disorders 134:266–271, 2011
82.
Chuang E, Wells R: The role of interagency collaboration in facilitating receipt of behavioral health services for youth involved with child welfare and juvenile justice. Children and Youth Services Review 32:1814–1822, 2010
83.
Childrens Bureau: Child Maltreatment 2010. Washington, DC, US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, 2011. Available at www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm#can
84.
Mental Health: Culture, Race, and Ethnicity—A Supplement to Mental Health: A Report to the Surgeon General. Rockville, Md, US Department of Health and Human Services, US Public Health Service, 2001
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Cover: The Nation Makers, by Howard Pyle 1903. Oil on canvas. Collection Brandywine River Museum of Art, purchased through a grant from the Mabel Pew Myrin Trust, 1984.
History
Published in print: July 2014
Published online: 27 October 2014
Authors
Funding Information
National Institute on Drug Abuse10.13039/100000026: 1R03DA032863
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).