Effect of Electronic Screening With Personalized Feedback on Adolescent Health Risk Behaviors in a Primary Care Setting: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Laura P Richardson, Chuan Zhou, Elon Gersh, Heather Spielvogle, James A Taylor, Carolyn A McCarty, Laura P Richardson, Chuan Zhou, Elon Gersh, Heather Spielvogle, James A Taylor, Carolyn A McCarty

Abstract

Importance: Health risk behaviors are a leading cause of morbidity during adolescence. Screening and counseling for health risk behaviors are recommended but infrequently performed.

Objective: To test the effect of an electronic screening and feedback tool on clinician counseling and adolescent-reported health risk behaviors.

Design, setting, and participants: A randomized clinical trial compared electronic screening and feedback on an intention-to-treat basis with usual care among 300 youths 13 to 18 years of age at 5 pediatric clinics in the Pacific Northwest. Outcomes were assessed via electronic survey at 1 day and 3 months after the initial visit. Study data collection occurred from March 13, 2015, to November 29, 2016, and statistical analysis was conducted between February 6, 2017, and June 20, 2018.

Interventions: Youths in the intervention group (n = 147) received electronic screening and personalized feedback with clinician clinical decision support. Youths in the control group (n = 153) received standard screening and counseling as provided by their clinic.

Main outcomes and measures: Youths' report of receipt of counseling during the visit and risk behaviors at 3 months.

Results: In the final study sample of 300 youths (intervention group, 75 girls and 72 boys; mean [SD] age, 14.5 [1.4 years]; and control group, 80 girls and 73 boys; mean [SD] age, 14.5 [1.4] years), 234 (78.0%) were aged 13 to 15 years. After adjusting for age, sex, and random effect of clinic, youths in the intervention group were more likely to receive counseling for each of their reported risk behaviors than were youths in the control group (adjusted rate ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.07-1.63). Youths in the intervention group had a significantly greater reduction (β = -0.48; 95% CI, -0.89 to -0.02; P = .02) in their risk behavior scores at 3 months when compared with youths in the control group.

Conclusions and relevance: Electronic screening of health risk behavior with clinical decision support and motivational feedback to teens can improve care delivery and outcomes.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02360410.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Drs Richardson and McCarty reported receiving grants from Health Resources and Services Administration Maternal Child Health Bureau during the conduct of the study. Drs Richardson and McCarty reported having a license agreement with Tickit Health Inc as inventors of the Check Yourself Tool whereby they will receive royalties from the future sale of the tool to other health care companies; Seattle Children’s Hospital has a management plan in place to oversee their interests with Tickit Health Inc. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure 1.. CONSORT Diagram
Figure 1.. CONSORT Diagram
Figure 2.. Rate of Risk Behaviors for…
Figure 2.. Rate of Risk Behaviors for Which Youths Received Counseling
Figure 3.. Change in Overall Risk Score…
Figure 3.. Change in Overall Risk Score from Baseline to 3 Months Comparing Intervention With Control Groups
Vertical lines indicate 95% CIs.

References

    1. McGinnis JM, Foege WH. Actual causes of death in the United States. JAMA. 1993;270(18):-. doi:10.1001/jama.1993.03510180077038
    1. Park MJ, Scott JT, Adams SH, Brindis CD, Irwin CE Jr. Adolescent and young adult health in the United States in the past decade: little improvement and young adults remain worse off than adolescents. J Adolesc Health. 2014;55(1):3-16. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.04.003
    1. Green M, Palfrey J, eds. Bright Futures: Guidelines for Health Supervision of Infants, Children, and Adolescents. 2nd ed Arlington, VA: National Center for Education in Maternal and Child Health; 2000.
    1. Elster A, Kuznets N, eds. Guidelines for Adolescent Preventive Services (GAPS). Baltimore, MD: Wiliams & Wilkins; 1994.
    1. Ozer EM, Adams SH, Lustig JL, et al. . Increasing the screening and counseling of adolescents for risky health behaviors: a primary care intervention. Pediatrics. 2005;115(4):960-968. doi:10.1542/peds.2004-0520
    1. Sterling S, Kline-Simon AH, Wibbelsman C, Wong A, Weisner C. Screening for adolescent alcohol and drug use in pediatric health-care settings: predictors and implications for practice and policy. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2012;7(1):13. doi:10.1186/1940-0640-7-13
    1. Klein JD, Sesselberg TS, Gawronski B, Handwerker L, Gesten F, Schettine A. Improving adolescent preventive services through state, managed care, and community partnerships. J Adolesc Health. 2003;32(6)(suppl):91-97. doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(03)00072-7
    1. Irwin CE Jr, Adams SH, Park MJ, Newacheck PW. Preventive care for adolescents: few get visits and fewer get services. Pediatrics. 2009;123(4):e565-e572. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-2601
    1. Ozer EM, Zahnd EG, Adams SH, et al. . Are adolescents being screened for emotional distress in primary care? J Adolesc Health. 2009;44(6):520-527. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.12.016
    1. Park MJ, Brindis CD, Vaughn B, Barry M, Guzman L, Berger A Adolescent health highlight: health care services. Child Trends . Published October 2013. Accessed November 28, 2018.
    1. Ma J, Wang Y, Stafford RSUS. US adolescents receive suboptimal preventive counseling during ambulatory care. J Adolesc Health. 2005;36(5):441. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.08.024
    1. Halpern-Felsher BL, Ozer EM, Millstein SG, et al. . Preventive services in a health maintenance organization: how well do pediatricians screen and educate adolescent patients? Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2000;154(2):173-179. doi:10.1001/archpedi.154.2.173
    1. Stevens J, Kelleher KJ, Gardner W, et al. . Trial of computerized screening for adolescent behavioral concerns. Pediatrics. 2008;121(6):1099-1105. doi:10.1542/peds.2007-1878
    1. Olson AL, Gaffney CA, Hedberg VA, Gladstone GR. Use of inexpensive technology to enhance adolescent health screening and counseling. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2009;163(2):172-177. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2008.533
    1. Webb MJ, Kauer SD, Ozer EM, Haller DM, Sanci LA. Does screening for and intervening with multiple health compromising behaviours and mental health disorders amongst young people attending primary care improve health outcomes? a systematic review. BMC Fam Pract. 2016;17:104. doi:10.1186/s12875-016-0504-1
    1. Miller LDG. DatStat. Seattle, WA: DatStat Inc; 1996.
    1. Goldenring JM, Cohen E. Getting into adolescent heads. Contemp Pediatr. 1988;5:75-90.
    1. Zieve GG, Richardson LP, Katzman K, Spielvogle H, Whitehouse S, McCarty CA. Adolescents’ perspectives on personalized e-feedback in the context of health risk behavior screening for primary care: qualitative study. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(7):e261. doi:10.2196/jmir.7474
    1. Ozer EM, Adams SH, Lustig JL, et al. . Can it be done? implementing adolescent clinical preventive services. Health Serv Res. 2001;36(6, pt 2):150-165.
    1. R Core Team R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Project for Statistical Computing; 2018. . Accessed October 28, 2018.
    1. Kuznetsova ABP, Christensen RB. ImerTest packages: tests in linear mixed effects models. J Stat Softw. 2017;82(13):1-26. doi:10.18637/jss.v082.i13
    1. Olson AL, Gaffney CA, Lee PW, Starr P. Changing adolescent health behaviors: the healthy teens counseling approach. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35(5)(suppl):S359-S364. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.08.014
    1. Ozer EM, Adams SH, Orrell-Valente JK, et al. . Does delivering preventive services in primary care reduce adolescent risky behavior? J Adolesc Health. 2011;49(5):476-482. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.02.011
    1. Sanci L, Chondros P, Sawyer S, et al. . Responding to young people’s health risks in primary care: a cluster randomised trial of training clinicians in screening and motivational interviewing. PLoS One. 2015;10(9):e0137581. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0137581
    1. Walker Z, Townsend J, Oakley L, et al. . Health promotion for adolescents in primary care: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2002;325(7363):524. doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7363.524
    1. Stevens MM, Olson AL, Gaffney CA, Tosteson TD, Mott LA, Starr P. A pediatric, practice-based, randomized trial of drinking and smoking prevention and bicycle helmet, gun, and seatbelt safety promotion. Pediatrics. 2002;109(3):490-497. doi:10.1542/peds.109.3.490
    1. Anand V, Carroll AE, Downs SM. Automated primary care screening in pediatric waiting rooms. Pediatrics. 2012;129(5):e1275-e1281. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-2875
    1. Rand CM, Shone LP, Albertin C, Auinger P, Klein JD, Szilagyi PG. National health care visit patterns of adolescents: implications for delivery of new adolescent vaccines. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007;161(3):252-259. doi:10.1001/archpedi.161.3.252
    1. Gersh E, Arghira AC, Richardson LP, Katzman K, McCarty CA. Comparison of health risks among adolescents from school-based health centers and community-based primary care settings. Health Behav Policy Rev. 2019;6(1):71-78. doi:10.14485/HBPR.6.1.6

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir