Skip to main content
Full access
Articles
Published Online: 4 January 2016

Receipt of Evidence-Based Pharmacotherapy and Psychotherapy Among Children and Adolescents With New Diagnoses of Depression

Abstract

Objective:

Little is known about utilization rates of the various depression treatment options available in the private sector for children and adolescents. For privately insured youths, this study examined the utilization frequency of six treatment options for depression with varying degrees of empirical support.

Methods:

A nationally representative administrative claims database of privately insured individuals (Truven Analytics database, 2008–2010) was used to construct a cohort of 61,599 youths (ages six to 17 years) with depression. Multivariable logistic regression controlling for insurance type, region, and illness severity and complexity assessed, by physician specialty, the likelihood of receiving six different depression treatments (medication combined with psychotherapy, first-line medication, second-line medication, non–evidence-based medication, second-generation antipsychotics, and psychotherapy alone).

Results:

Only 58.4% of depressed youths received at least one type of depression treatment; 33.6% received psychotherapy alone, 24.8% received medication alone, and 2.7% received combination treatment. Of depressed youths receiving only medication, 24.8% received medications unsupported by empirical evidence (non–evidence-based or second-generation antipsychotics) and 50.6% received medications with equivocal support. Mental health specialists were approximately nine times (odds ratio=8.61) more likely than primary care providers to prescribe combination treatment. Other predictors of receiving combination treatment included having diagnosed major depressive disorder, being a young adolescent (ages 12–14), and residing in the Northeast.

Conclusions:

Large proportions of depressed youths are not receiving any treatment or are receiving treatments unsupported or equivocally supported by empirical evidence. Additional research is warranted to assess factors associated with nonrecommended use of pharmacotherapies for youths with depression.
Depressive illness of children and adolescents (youths) is a major public health concern. A nationally representative U.S. study from 2010 reported a lifetime prevalence of major depressive disorder or dysthymia for approximately 11.7% of adolescents (15.9% for females and 7.7% for males). Depression is a critical factor for suicide, which is the third leading cause of death among teenagers in the United States (1). Approximately 60% of depressed youths report having thought about suicide, and 30% attempt it (2).
Because recommendations for the treatment of depression are based in part on safety and efficacy studies conducted with adults, clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of depression in youth suggest that treatment modalities should be conservative (3). The effects of psychotropic agents on brain development have not been adequately delineated for humans (4,5), and the therapeutic effects of antidepressants vary significantly across age groups (6). Although untreated depression has substantial long-term consequences, unsafe and ineffective depression treatment also can have adverse outcomes. Therefore, clinical practice guidelines are promulgated for the best benefit-to-risk ratio for youths with depression.
Although there is considerable research targeting depression treatment in both the public and private sectors of the U.S. health care system, there is a lack of data regarding how treatment varies for the latter. Compared with the public sector, the private sector is characterized by more complex systems of insurance, fewer incentives to use clinical practice guidelines, and higher likelihood of receiving non–evidence-based medications (7).
In light of these factors, we sought to investigate the patterns of combination treatment (psychotherapy plus medication), psychotherapy, and antidepressant and antipsychotic treatment across provider specialty, insurance type, regional location, disease complexity and severity, and individual characteristics among privately insured youths with a depression diagnosis. The aim of the study was to determine the extent to which depression treatment conforms to the extant evidence base and to identify factors contributing to observed variations in treatment modalities.

Methods

Data

We conducted a retrospective claims analysis of children and adolescents (six to 17 years of age) at the time that a claim appeared. Annual data from 2008–2010 were derived over 24 months from the Truven Analytics database, a nationally representative data sample of individuals with employer-provided health insurance in the United States, representing the general medical experience of approximately 50 million covered lives. The database includes private-sector health information of approximately 100 payers throughout the country. This study was approved by the Boston Medical Center Institutional Review Board.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Table 1 summarizes different treatment options for youths with depression. “Combination” treatment was identified by the Treatment for Adolescents With Depression Study (TADS; 8,9) as the most effective treatment to hasten remission of depressive symptoms while offering the most favorable risk-benefit profile (10,11). Combination treatment also was found in the Treatment of Resistant Depression in Adolescents (TORDIA) study to be the most effective treatment for depression that is resistant to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs; 12). Fluoxetine, the only antidepressant approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of depression among youths, has a consistently favorable risk-benefit profile based on available evidence (1315) and is considered “first line” treatment. The remaining SSRIs (except fluoxetine) are considered “second line” by most clinical guidelines (1518), but most of the evidence supporting their use remains equivocal. The remaining drug types, described as non–evidence based, have two subcategories: newer antidepressants—such as noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressants (NaSSAs), norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitors (NDRIs), and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs)—and second-generation antipsychotics. These categories are not supported by sound empirical evidence of safety and efficacy for the treatment of depressed youths. Finally, the psychotherapy-alone treatment option excluded any medication use.
TABLE 1. Treatment options for depression among U.S. youths
Treatment, by proprietary nameActive ingredientPharmaceutical classaFDA approval
Combination (medication plus psychotherapy)b   
 Prozac and psychotherapyFluoxetineSSRI≥8 years
First-line antidepressant   
 ProzacFluoxetineSSRI≥8 years
Second-line antidepressant   
 CelexaCitalopramSSRI≥18 years
 LexaproEscitalopramcSSRI12–17 years (major depression only)
 PaxilParoxetineSSRI≥18 years
 ZoloftSertralineSSRI≥6 years (obsessive-compulsive disorder only)
 LuvoxFluvoxamineSSRI≥8 years (obsessive-compulsive disorder only)
Non–evidence-based medication   
 CymbaltaDuloxetineSNRI≥18 years (major depression only)
 SavellaMilnacipramSNRINot approved for major depression in the U.S., but approved in other countries
 PristiqDesvenlafaxineSNRI≥18 years (major depression only)
 EffexorVenlafaxineSNRI≥18 years (major depression only)
 WellbutrinBupropionNDRI≥18 years
 RemeronMirtazapineNaSSA≥18 years
 SeroquelQuetiapineSGANot approved for youth depressive disorders
 GeodonZiprasidoneSGANot approved for youth depressive disorders
 AbilifyAripiprazoleSGANot approved for youth depressive disorders
 ZyprexaOlanzapineSGANot approved for youth depressive disorders
 RisperdalRisperidoneSGANot approved for youth depressive disorders
a
SSRI, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor; SNRI, serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor; NDRI, norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitor; NaSSA, noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressants; SGA, second-generation antipsychotic
b
Source: Pathak et al. (9)
c
Escitalopram is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat major depressive disorder of adolescents; however, it is not approved for patients younger than 12.
Children and adolescents were identified as having a depressive disorder if they met three criteria: if they received at least two outpatient diagnoses of depression, because such a method offers higher sensitivity than just one outpatient diagnosis (19) or one medication claim plus one diagnosis of depression; if they had a six-month “clean period” without any diagnosis of depression or medication utilization; and if they had at least 12 months of continuous insurance coverage after the date of diagnosis. This methodology is sufficiently accurate and has shown high positive predictive value (20). Exclusions were children and adolescents with a diagnosis of bipolar (296.0x, 296.4x) or schizophrenia (295.6x) disorders and those with mixed disorders (depression and psychosis, or depression and bipolar disorder) because they may appropriately receive second-generation antipsychotic treatment for these illnesses, thus making it difficult to distinguish between antipsychotic medication used for treatment of psychotic symptoms versus depressive symptoms. Our final sample consisted of 61,599 youths who met our inclusion criteria.

Analysis

Medication data were extracted from the outpatient pharmacy claims that showed the national drug code. At least one claim for antidepressant or second-generation antipsychotic medication was defined as “any medication use.” Providers were classified into two mutually exclusive categories: mental health specialists, represented by psychiatrists, psychologists, psychiatric nurses, and child psychiatrists, and primary care providers, represented by internists, pediatricians, family physicians, nurse practitioners, and general practitioners. Psychotherapy utilization was identified by Current Procedure Terminology codes (90804–90809, 90853, and 90847). Private insurance was classified into four groups (Table 2): those enrolled in a health maintenance organization (HMO), point-of-service plan (POS), or preferred provider organization (PPO) were considered to be managed care clients. The others were receiving fee-for-service coverage. We controlled for demographic characteristics, including age (childhood, six to 11 years; early adolescence, 12–14 years; and late adolescence, 15–17 years), gender, U.S. geographic region (West, Midwest, South, and Northeast), and psychiatric comorbidities (anxiety, ICD-9 code 300.0; posttraumatic distress disorder [PTSD], ICD-9 code 309.81; attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder [ADHD], ICD-9 code 314.01; and suicidal ideation, ICD-9 code V62.84). Having more than one mental disorder has been identified in the literature as a proxy of illness complexity among depressed individuals (6).
TABLE 2. Structural differences between private insurance plan typesa
Plan typebIncentives to use certain providersPrimary care physician assignedReferrals to specialists requiredOut-of-network services coveredPartially or fully capitated
HMOYesYesYesNoYes
POSYesYesYesYesNo
PPOYesNonaYesNo
Fee for serviceNoNonanaNo
a
Source: Modified from the Truven Analytics database: Commercial Claims and Encounters Medicare Supplemental for 2009
b
HMO, health maintenance organization; POS, point of service; PPO, preferred provider organization
Descriptive statistics are presented for the entire study population as well for strata defined by provider specialty, insurance type, and regional and individual variables. The percentages of youths receiving each type of treatment were calculated. Prevalence estimates used either of two denominators: the total number of youths with depression was the denominator for conditions including psychotherapy, and the total number of youths receiving at least one medication was the denominator for those receiving pharmacologic treatment. Multiple logistic regression models with stable standard errors accounting for the complex survey design of the sample and allowed the assessment of the independent effects of provider specialty, insurance type, illness severity, and regional and individual characteristics on the likelihood that depressed youths would receive one of the six depression treatments. Results are presented as adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals.
Interaction was examined between the provider specialty and the other covariates. Interaction terms were ruled out from the model if they were not significant or not policy relevant. Collinearity was examined among all covariates, with the variance inflation factor not exceeding 10. The expected performance and stability of the models were measured by the c statistic and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test, respectively. Using the SAS Raking Macro, developed by Izrael and colleagues (21), we weighted the data to represent the privately insured population in the United States. The accuracy of the estimates between medication groups and the predictors of interest were tested with Bonferroni methods and the bootstrap inference (10,000 bootstrap samples) (22). All analyses were run with SAS software, release 9.3 (23).

Results

Table 3 reports the prevalence and the unweighted univariate predictors of type of treatment. Nearly a quarter (24.8%) of all depressed youths received medication monotherapy. Of those, 23.5% received first-line medication (fluoxetine), 50.6% received second-line medications (other SSRIs), 9.2% received newer antidepressants (SNRIs, NDRIs, and NaSSAs), and 15.6% received second-generation antipsychotics. Combining all SSRIs (first and second line) accounted for 74.1% of medication monotherapy treatment. Together, non–evidence-based choices (SNRIs, NDRIs, NaSSAs, and second-generation antipsychotics) accounted for 24.8% of medication monotherapy treatment. About 1% of the medication monotherapy sample reported use of tricyclic antidepressants and monoamine oxidase inhibitors (data not shown). Of all youths with depression, 33.6% received psychotherapy alone and 2.7% received combination treatment (fluoxetine plus psychotherapy).
TABLE 3. Prevalence of depression treatments among privately insured youths in the United Statesa
     Non–evidence based 
CharacteristicNCombination (%)First line (%)Second line (%)Newer antidepressants (%)SGAb (%)Psychotherapy (%)
Youths using a medication option15,264 23.550.69.215.6 
All youths with depression61,5992.7    33.6
Provider type       
 Primary care physician15,1123.3***29.6*27.826.014.3***4.6***
 Mental health specialist9,94827.72224.225.525.518.8
Private insurancec       
 Fee for service8722.04.4*10.82.3**5.8*34.9***
 PPO11,6101.34.69.52.43.831.9
 POS4,2991.33.87.92.63.936.4
 HMO40,4741.13.89.01.83.536.0
Age group       
 Childhood8,3951.1**3.8***7.1***1.1***3.8*38.2***
 Early adolescence15,7081.75.411.12.64.029.6
 Late adolescence37,4181.14.511.84.13.326.7
Gender       
 Male26,1211.34.38.6**2.34.5***34.0**
 Female35,4001.34.69.82.22.932.3
Region       
 West12,5061.1**4.6**9***2.2***3.437.8***
 South19,9171.13.99.02.13.828.9
 Midwest22,1741.55.010.92.93.931.7
 Northeast6,9241.94.48.02.13.837.8
Comorbidity       
 PTSD1481.39.24.4***1.211.4***34.1***
 ADHD2,986.83.75.72.63.427.1
 Suicidal ideation572.15.712.43.911.4.1
 Anxiety2,4141.34.614.62.33.529.1
a
Source: Truven Analytics database, 2009. Percentages are weighted to the population. For each characteristic, proportions within a treatment type were compared by chi square tests.
b
Second-generation antipsychotics
c
PPO, preferred provider organization; POS, point of service; HMO, health maintenance organization
*
p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
For the unweighted univariate analysis, six characteristics were assessed (provider specialty, private insurance, age group, gender, region, and psychiatric comorbidities). Overall, compared with mental health specialists, primary care providers reported an increased likelihood of choosing fluoxetine alone (p<.001) but were less likely to choose combination treatment, psychotherapy alone, and second-generation antipsychotics (p<.001 for each category). For insurance type, psychotherapy alone was less likely to be used in fee-for-service care compared with HMO care (p<.001). On the other hand, newer antidepressant treatment (p<.001), second-generation antipsychotics (p<.001) and fluoxetine alone (p<.001) were more frequently used under fee-for-service arrangements, compared with HMOs.
Table 4 reports the independent predictors from the multivariable logistic regression. Overall, provider specialty was the most consistent factor predicting treatment of depressed youths. After analyses controlled for demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and illness severity, mental health specialists compared with primary care providers were more likely to choose combination treatment (odds ratio [OR]=8.61), newer antidepressants (OR=1.44), second-generation antipsychotics (OR=2.24), and psychotherapy alone (OR=5.90). First-line treatment was not used differently across specialties.
TABLE 4. Likelihood of utilization of treatment options for youths with depression in the United Statesa
 Non–evidence based
 CombinationFirst lineSecond lineNewer antidepressantsSGAbPsychotherapy
VariableOR95% CIOR95% CIOR95% CIOR95% CIOR95% CIOR95% CI
Mental health specialist (reference: primary care provider)8.61***5.38–14.01.81†.71–1.001.12.98–1.221.441.12–1.672.24***1.69–2.705.90***5.22–6.77
Private insurance (reference: HMO)c            
 Fee for service1.73.75–3.911.12.69–1.791.24.85–1.711.22.74–1.941.81*1.10–3.041.04.73–1.25
 PPO1.22.93–1.651.23*1.04–1.421.10.98–1.201.44**1.17–1.681.10.93–1.31.92**.82–.95
 POS1.04.65–1.64.94.75–1.28.97.76–1.081.65**1.22–2.141.12.86–1.50.94.85–1.09
Age group (reference: late adolescence)            
 Childhood.82***.62–.99.90.81–1.06.66***.55–.67.21***.19–.301.04.90–1.201.61***1.48–1.67
 Early adolescence1.22***1.06–1.471.21***1.13–1.36.94.91–1.04.63***.55–.701.22*1.04–1.281.13***1.06–1.17
Male (reference: female)1.06.85–1.30.95.86–1.09.97.89–1.051.23**1.10–1.431.54***1.33–1.751.04.92–1.04
Region (reference: Northeast)            
 West.64**.40–.81.95.77–1.131.05.85–1.15.92.75–1.19.91.70–1.131.22***1.11–1.36
 South.62**.46–.87.81***.66–.981.03.90–1.19.90.78–1.181.02.79–1.23.85***.75–.91
 Midwest.87.60–1.101.12.93–1.351.34***1.16–1.521.32***1.10–1.641.03.83–1.27.83***.76–.92
Comorbidity (reference: anxiety)            
 PTSD2.51.51–12.512.45.82–6.76.36***.15–.60.65.16–2.143.81***1.59–9.211.13.58–2.00
 ADHD.64.26–1.26.81.54–1.21.45***.28–.481.32.82–2.00.92.55–1.361.02.77–1.17
 Suicidal ideation  1.52.90–2.561.02.64–1.461.62.89–2.983.44***2.00–5.74.02***.00–.03
Disease severity (reference: major depressive disorder)            
 Dysthymia.50***.40–.66.81**.70–.99.83**.74–.92.95.75–1.081.12.97–1.47.65***.53–.63
 Unspecified depression.63**.44–.82.63**.52–.79.72***.61–.80.66***.52–.80.71**.54–.901.34***1.15–1.39
a
Major depressive disorder summary statistics: combination treatment, c (area under the curve)=.69, Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit (HL)=.43; first-line treatment, c=.62, HL=.19; second-line treatment, c=.64, HL=.22; non–evidence-based treatment, c=.66, HL=.79; second-generation antipsychotics, c=.68, HL=.88; psychotherapy alone, c=.73, HL=.91
b
Second-generation antipsychotics
c
HMO, health maintenance organization; PPO, preferred provider organization; POS, point of service
*
p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
Borderline significant
Compared with HMOs, the odds that PPOs and POSs would use newer antidepressant options were significantly higher (OR=1.44 and OR=1.65, respectively), whereas second-generation antipsychotics were more likely to be used under fee-for-service coverage (OR=1.81). In addition, PPOs were more likely to use fluoxetine alone (OR=1.23) and less likely to use psychotherapy alone (OR=.92). Combination treatment and second-line antidepressant treatment were similarly used across all plan types.
Medication-only and combination regimens were less likely to be used with children compared with adolescents (except for first-line antidepressant medication and second-generation antipsychotics), whereas psychotherapy alone was more likely to be used with children (OR=1.61) than with adolescents. The odds of receiving second-line (OR=.66) and newer antidepressants (OR=.21) were lower for children compared with older adolescents, and males were more likely than females to receive newer antidepressants (OR=1.23) and second-generation antipsychotics (OR=1.54). For regional differences, youths in the Northeast were more likely than youths in the West and South to receive combination treatment, whereas psychotherapy alone was more likely to be used in the West (OR=1.22) than in the Northeast.
Considering illness severity, we found that compared with youths with major depressive disorder, youths with dysthymia were less likely to receive combination treatment (OR=.50), fluoxetine alone (OR=.81), non–evidence-based medication (OR=.83), or psychotherapy alone (OR=.65).

Discussion

The results from this study have important implications for policy makers, physicians, and patients. Nationally, two-fifths of privately insured youths with depression did not receive any depression-specific treatment, and less than 3% received combination treatment. Of youths treated with medication, one-quarter received medications with little to no empirical support, and an additional one-half received medications with uncertain benefits. As such, provider practice for the treatment of depression among privately insured youths does not appear to be in alignment with the current evidence base.
Our findings corroborate previously published studies, signaling low utilization rates of combination treatment (16). This finding reflects the well-documented difficulties associated with the delivery of psychotherapy in primary care settings (24). Provider specialty has been recognized in this study as well as in previous research as a key determinant of treatment selection for younger populations (25). Current health care delivery migration to primary care settings in the United States (26) and the escalating shortages of mental health specialists all around the country (27), especially for pediatric patients, require primary care providers to treat patients that historically were managed by mental health specialists. However, primary care providers are typically overburdened with additional demands to provide mental health care with fewer resources, fewer support staff, additional budget constraints, and limited training compared with specialists’ circumstances (28,29). The Medical Outcomes Study reported that patients seen by psychiatrists had better functional outcomes (30), and Callahan and colleagues (31) found that less than half of primary care providers prescribed a treatment for their patients with depression, even though the clinicians had proper diagnostic scales and treatment algorithms. Furthermore, medication alone for patients with depression is not always effective (especially at follow-up) (32), and current reimbursement incentives for primary care providers to offer psychotherapy as an alternative may not be worth the time and intensive labor that psychotherapy requires (30).
Insurance coverage was significantly associated with four out of six treatment options, suggesting an association between less restrictive private insurance arrangements with higher rates of nonrecommended medication options. Our data suggest that prescription of non–evidence-based antidepressants and second-generation antipsychotics was more prevalent in fee-for-service and PPO insurance arrangements, the latter being the more flexible managed care option in terms of specialists’ availability, noncapitated payment arrangements, and no prior approval needed for prescribing specific medications. Compared with more flexible insurance arrangements, managed care’s use of formularies may predispose providers to choose recommended treatments more often. For example, DeBar and colleagues (33) reported that compared with adolescents covered by PPOs, adolescent members of HMOs were more likely to receive treatment via treatment-concordant protocols and prescription formularies.
In terms of age differences, second-line antidepressants were more likely used to treat adolescents compared with children; this finding may derive from providers’ awareness of FDA approval of escitalopram to treat major depressive disorder beginning at age 12. In general, the age-difference findings reflect a more conservative approach to the treatment of depression for younger compared with older youths.
Effects of illness complexity on prescribing practices indicated an increased likelihood of second-generation antipsychotic prescription for youths with depression plus either PTSD or suicidal ideation, even though second-generation antipsychotics lack empirical support for these indications. Although much less research has focused on treatments for the milder forms of depression (including unspecified depression and dysthymia), current guidelines (34,35) suggest that treatment of mild depression should begin with psychotherapy. Nonetheless, the vast majority of youths in this study with a diagnosis of dysthymia received monotherapy (one medication).
Several limitations of this study should be noted. First, we used claims data and may have underidentified patients with depression by excluding those who had an outpatient visit in which a depression diagnosis was not recorded. Second, not all possible comorbid diagnoses were assessed. It is possible that less frequent comorbid conditions, such as disruptive behavior disorders, have an impact on choice of medication, including second-generation antipsychotics. However, their low frequency in the data did not allow separate analysis. Third, even though we tried to identify a depression-free period by excluding those with a prior medication or depression diagnosis before the index date, we recognize that a fraction of our sample may not represent first visits because some may have received treatment prior to our designated clean period. In addition, our definition of combination therapy as the most desirable treatment choice is potentially more applicable to youths with depression nonresistant to SSRIs. Randomized clinical trials are needed to guide future clinical algorithms for youths with other types of resistant depression (such as psychotherapy resistance and SNRI resistance). Finally, primary care providers may be more willing than mental health professionals to use adjustment disorder diagnosis rather than depressive diagnosis for reimbursement purposes. Hence, we may be underestimating the frequency of youths being treated for depression in primary care providers’ settings.
Mental health treatment recommendations and primary care providers’ busy schedules seem to move in opposite directions. Even though recent meta-analytic evidence positions psychotherapy as equal to or possibly greater in effectiveness than antidepressant medication for the treatment of depression of youths (36), less than 10% of primary care providers in the private sector delivered psychotherapy in 2009. [A table provided in the online supplement to this article provides further detail.] The collaborative care model for the treatment of depression, shown in over 70 randomized trials to be efficacious in primary care settings for the treatment of depressed adults (37), now has empirical support for enhancing access to evidence-based treatments (including psychotherapy) and improving clinical outcomes for depressed youths (38,39). The collaborative model incorporates (alongside medication management as indicated) evidence-based psychotherapy delivered by colocated mental health clinicians (predominantly master’s level), as well as care management to facilitate patient engagement, treatment adherence, and referral to specialty care if needed (38,39). However, the implementation of psychotherapy in primary care settings remains contingent on proper training. For example, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) has been taught in experiential instruction and residential programs and has been effective in increasing providers’ ability to use CBT as a treatment after one year of training (40). However, for primary care providers, a one-year training program is likely to be too much of a time commitment, and shorter CBT training alternatives should be sought. A 2010 study developed a formalized, multimodal, brief psychotherapy training approach for mental health practitioners in primary care. The workshop lasted 1.5 days and significantly improved both knowledge and self-reported abilities, and the effect was maintained at three-month follow-up (40).
The use of mental treatment networks (internet-based) may be another feasible approach. For example, for persons between the ages of 14 and 21, the CATCH-IT initiative (Competent Adulthood Transition with Cognitive-Behavioral and Interpersonal Training) is a low-cost preventive intervention that is fairly easy to disseminate in primary care settings and offers resources on building competencies to reduce current and future depressive symptoms (41). Such modalities may be particularly effective for rural or socioeconomically marginalized clinics.

Conclusions

Recognizing that the role of primary care providers in identifying and treating children and adolescents with emotional, behavioral, and developmental disorders will continue to increase in the context of a nationwide shortage of mental health specialists, both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (42) have advocated the integration of mental health care into the pediatric medical home. One-quarter of youths seen in the primary care setting and about one-half of all pediatric office visits involve behavioral, emotional, developmental, psychosocial, or educational concerns (42). As a result, primary care providers are on the front line in the effort to identify, diagnose, and treat psychiatric disorders of youths. The results of this study highlight the increasing need for more research on clinician judgment and decision making in the application of guideline-concordant treatment for depression. They also underscore the need to use innovative health care delivery strategies to improve access to safe and effective treatment for youths experiencing depression.

Acknowledgments

The Center for the Assessment of Pharmaceutical Practices of the Department of Health Policy and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, provided partial support for the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and review of the manuscript.

Supplementary Material

File (appi.ps.201500090.ds001.pdf)

References

1.
Merikangas KR, He JP, Burstein M, et al: Lifetime prevalence of mental disorders in US adolescents: results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication—Adolescent Supplement (NCS-A). Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 49:980–989, 2010
2.
Posner K, Melvin GA, Stanley B, et al: Factors in the assessment of suicidality in youth. CNS Spectrums 12:156–162, 2007
3.
Cheung AH, Zuckerbrot RA, Jensen PS, et al: Guidelines for adolescent depression in primary care (GLAD-PC): II. treatment and ongoing management. Pediatrics 120:e1313–e1326, 2007
4.
Davey CG, Yücel M, Allen NB: The emergence of depression in adolescence: development of the prefrontal cortex and the representation of reward. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 32:1–19, 2008
5.
Andersen SL, Teicher MH: Stress, sensitive periods and maturational events in adolescent depression. Trends in Neurosciences 31:183–191, 2008
6.
Gibbons RD, Brown CH, Hur K, et al: Suicidal thoughts and behavior with antidepressant treatment: reanalysis of the randomized placebo-controlled studies of fluoxetine and venlafaxine. Archives of General Psychiatry 69:580–587, 2012
7.
Busch SH, Leslie DL, Rosenheck RA: Comparing the quality of antidepressant pharmacotherapy in the Department of Veterans Affairs and the private sector. Psychiatric Services 55:1386–1391, 2004
8.
March J, Silva S, Petrycki S, et al: Fluoxetine, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and their combination for adolescents with depression: Treatment for Adolescents With Depression Study (TADS) randomized controlled trial. JAMA 292:807–820, 2004
9.
Pathak S, Kratochvil CJ, Rogers GM, et al: Comparative efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy, fluoxetine, and their combination in depressed adolescents: initial lessons from the Treatment for Adolescents With Depression Study. Current Psychiatry Reports 7:429–434, 2005
10.
March J, Silva S, Curry J, et al: The Treatment for Adolescents With Depression Study (TADS): outcomes over 1 year of naturalistic follow-up. American Journal of Psychiatry 166:1141–1149, 2009
11.
March JS, Vitiello B: Clinical messages from the Treatment for Adolescents With Depression Study (TADS). American Journal of Psychiatry 166:1118–1123, 2009
12.
Brent D, Emslie G, Clarke G, et al: Switching to another SSRI or to venlafaxine with or without cognitive behavioral therapy for adolescents with SSRI-resistant depression: the TORDIA randomized controlled trial. JAMA 299:901–913, 2008
13.
Tsapakis EM, Soldani F, Tondo L, et al: Efficacy of antidepressants in juvenile depression: meta-analysis. British Journal of Psychiatry 193:10–17, 2008
14.
Usala T, Clavenna A, Zuddas A, et al: Randomised controlled trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in treating depression in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Neuropsychopharmacology 18:62–73, 2008
15.
Bridge JA, Iyengar S, Salary CB, et al: Clinical response and risk for reported suicidal ideation and suicide attempts in pediatric antidepressant treatment: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 297:1683–1696, 2007
16.
Rollman BL, Weinreb L, Korsen N, et al: Implementation of guideline-based care for depression in primary care. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 33:43–53, 2006
17.
Schepker R, Lippert H-D, Kölch M, et al: The dilemma of court expertise: commentary on the SSRI-tapering verdict by the Saxonian social court [in German]. Zeitschrift für Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie und Psychotherapie 35:207–212, 2007
18.
Yu AP, Ben-Hamadi R, Wu EQ, et al: Impact of initiation timing of SSRI or SNRI on depressed adolescent healthcare utilization and costs. Journal of Medical Economics 14:508–515, 2011
19.
Peabody JW, Luck J, Jain S, et al: Assessing the accuracy of administrative data in health information systems. Medical Care 42:1066–1072, 2004
20.
Townsend L, Walkup JT, Crystal S, et al: A systematic review of validated methods for identifying depression using administrative data. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 21(suppl 1):163–173, 2012
21.
Izrael D, Hoaglin D, Battaglia M: Macro for Balancing a Weighted Sample. Cary, NC, SAS, 1999
22.
Faries DE, Obenchain R, Haro JM, et al: Analysis of Observational Health Care Data Using SAS. Cary, NC, SAS Institute, 2010. Available at books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=zk6iZ8d0PJQC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=Bootstrapping+in+SAS.+Cary,+NC,+SAS,+2010.&ots=5Cwy_wTdda&sig=tHSRdQyyJWJpxjCqiWWvjJOzCuc
23.
SAS/IML 9.3 User’s Guide. Cary, NC, SAS, Available at https://books-google-com./books/about/SAS_IML_9_3_User_s_Guide.html
24.
Kessler D, Lewis G, Kaur S, et al: Therapist-delivered Internet psychotherapy for depression in primary care: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 374:628–634, 2009
25.
Birmaher B, Brent D, Bernet W, et al: Practice parameter for the assessment and treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 46:1503–1526, 2007
26.
Lapetina EM, Armstrong EM: Preventing errors in the outpatient setting: a tale of three states. Health Affairs 21(4):26–39, 2002
27.
Thomas KC, Ellis AR, Konrad TR, et al: County-level estimates of mental health professional shortage in the United States. Psychiatric Services 60:1323–1328, 2009
28.
Radovic A, Farris C, Reynolds K, et al: Primary care providers’ initial treatment decisions and antidepressant prescribing for adolescent depression. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics 35:28–37, 2014
29.
Thomas CR, Holzer CE III: The continuing shortage of child and adolescent psychiatrists. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 45:1023–1031, 2006
30.
Donohoe MT: Comparing generalist and specialty care: discrepancies, deficiencies, and excesses. Archives of Internal Medicine 158:1596–1608, 1998
31.
Callahan CM, Dittus RS, Tierney WM: Primary care physicians’ medical decision making for late-life depression. Journal of General Internal Medicine 11:218–225, 1996
32.
Imel ZE, Malterer MB, McKay KM, et al: A meta-analysis of psychotherapy and medication in unipolar depression and dysthymia. Journal of Affective Disorders 110:197–206, 2008
33.
DeBar LL, Clarke GN, O’Connor E, et al: Treated prevalence, incidence, and pharmacotherapy of child and adolescent mood disorders in an HMO. Mental Health Services Research 3:73–89, 2001
34.
Birmaher B, Brent D, AACAP Work Group on Quality Issues, et al: Practice parameter for the assessment and treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 46:1503–1526, 2007
35.
Bauer M, Whybrow PC, Angst J, et al: World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for biological treatment of unipolar depressive disorders, part 1: acute and continuation treatment of major depressive disorder. World Journal of Biological Psychiatry 3:5–43, 2002
36.
Cox GR, Callahan P, Churchill R, et al: Psychological therapies versus antidepressant medication, alone and in combination for depression in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 11:CD008324, 2012
37.
Archer J, Bower P, Gilbody S, et al: Collaborative care for depression and anxiety problems. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 10:CD006525, 2012
38.
Asarnow JR, Jaycox LH, Duan N, et al: Effectiveness of a quality improvement intervention for adolescent depression in primary care clinics: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 293:311–319, 2005
39.
Richardson LP, Ludman E, McCauley E, et al: Collaborative care for adolescents with depression in primary care: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 312:809–816, 2014
40.
Cully JA, Teten AL, Benge JF, et al: Multidisciplinary cognitive-behavioral therapy training for the Veterans Affairs primary care setting. Primary Care Companion to the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 2010
41.
Van Voorhees BW, Smith S, Ewigman B: Treat depressed teens with medication and psychotherapy. Journal of Family Practice 57:735–739a, 2008
42.
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Committee on Health Care Access and Economics Task Force on Mental Health: Improving mental health services in primary care: reducing administrative and financial barriers to access and collaboration. Pediatrics 123:1248–1251, 2009

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to Psychiatric Services
Go to Psychiatric Services

Cover: Bowl, by Louis Comfort Tiffany, circa 1908. Favrile glass. Gift of Louis Comfort Tiffany Foundation, 1951 (51.121.13). Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City. Image copyright © The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Image source: Art Resource, New York City.

Psychiatric Services
Pages: 316 - 323
PubMed: 26725295

History

Received: 3 March 2015
Revision received: 28 May 2015
Accepted: 1 July 2015
Published online: 4 January 2016
Published in print: March 01, 2016

Authors

Details

Rene Soria-Saucedo, M.D., Ph.D.
Dr. Soria-Saucedo, Dr. England, and Dr. Kazis are with the Department of Health Policy and Management and Dr. Cabral is with the Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston. Dr. Soria-Saucedo is also with the Department of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville. Dr. Walter is with the Department of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine. Send correspondence to Dr. Kazis (e-mail: [email protected]).
Heather J. Walter, M.D., M.P.H.
Dr. Soria-Saucedo, Dr. England, and Dr. Kazis are with the Department of Health Policy and Management and Dr. Cabral is with the Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston. Dr. Soria-Saucedo is also with the Department of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville. Dr. Walter is with the Department of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine. Send correspondence to Dr. Kazis (e-mail: [email protected]).
Howard Cabral, M.P.H., Ph.D.
Dr. Soria-Saucedo, Dr. England, and Dr. Kazis are with the Department of Health Policy and Management and Dr. Cabral is with the Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston. Dr. Soria-Saucedo is also with the Department of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville. Dr. Walter is with the Department of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine. Send correspondence to Dr. Kazis (e-mail: [email protected]).
Mary Jane England, M.D.
Dr. Soria-Saucedo, Dr. England, and Dr. Kazis are with the Department of Health Policy and Management and Dr. Cabral is with the Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston. Dr. Soria-Saucedo is also with the Department of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville. Dr. Walter is with the Department of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine. Send correspondence to Dr. Kazis (e-mail: [email protected]).
Lewis E. Kazis, Sc.M., Sc.D.
Dr. Soria-Saucedo, Dr. England, and Dr. Kazis are with the Department of Health Policy and Management and Dr. Cabral is with the Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston. Dr. Soria-Saucedo is also with the Department of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville. Dr. Walter is with the Department of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine. Send correspondence to Dr. Kazis (e-mail: [email protected]).

Notes

Portions of this work were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, May 3–7, 2014, New York City.

Competing Interests

The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.

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.

Format
Citation style
Style
Copy to clipboard

View Options

View options

PDF/EPUB

View PDF/EPUB

Get Access

Login 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 login
Purchase Options

Purchase this article to access the full text.

PPV Articles - Psychiatric Services

PPV Articles - Psychiatric Services

Not a subscriber?

Subscribe Now / Learn More

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.).

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share article link

Share