Review of Effective Supervision: A Task-Oriented Model for the Mental Health Professional.

1992 ◽  
Vol 37 (8) ◽  
pp. 829-829
Author(s):  
No authorship indicated
1984 ◽  
Vol 29 (9) ◽  
pp. 701-702
Author(s):  
R. Matthew Reese ◽  
Jan B. Sheldon

TCA Journal ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 17-31
Author(s):  
Tony Picchioni ◽  
Barton Bernstein

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina Camille Burruss ◽  
Marina Girgis ◽  
Karen Elizabeth Green ◽  
Lingyi Lu ◽  
Deepak Palakshappa

Abstract Background To determine if individuals with food insecurity (FI) were less likely to have seen a mental health professional (MHP) within the past year than individuals without FI. Methods This is a cross-sectional analysis of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) conducted in the United States between 2007 and 2014. All participants 20 years of age or older were eligible for this study. We excluded participants who were pregnant, missing FI data, or missing data from the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). The primary outcome was self-reported contact with a MHP in the past 12 months. We used multivariable logistic regression models to test the association between FI and contact with a MHP, controlling for all demographic and clinical covariates. Results Of the 19,789 participants, 13.9% were food insecure and 8.1% had major depressive disorder (MDD). In bivariate analysis, participants with FI were significantly more likely to have MDD (5.3% vs 2.8%, p < 0.0001) and to have been seen by a MHP in the preceding 12 months (14.0% vs 6.9%, p < 0.0001). In multivariable models, adults with FI had higher odds of having seen a MHP (OR = 1.32, CI: 1.07, 1.64). Conclusions This study demonstrates that individuals with FI were significantly more likely to have seen a MHP in the preceding 12 months compared to individuals without FI. Given the growing interest in addressing unmet social needs in healthcare settings, this data suggests that visits with MHPs may be a valuable opportunity to screen for and intervene on FI.


2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 172-174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel C. McFarland ◽  
Megan Johnson Shen ◽  
Kirk Harris ◽  
John Mandeli ◽  
Amy Tiersten ◽  
...  

QUESTIONS ASKED: Preferences of patients with breast cancer for provider-specific pharmacologic management of anxiety and depression are unknown. Use of patient-guided treatment preferences for the treatment of depression and anxiety are known to improve adherence and treatment outcomes in primary care settings, but these preferences are not known in women with breast cancer. This may be especially true shortly after the patient receives a diagnosis of cancer and is most psychologically symptomatic, yet committed to following through with her oncologic care. Do breast cancer patients have preferences regarding having their anxiety and depression assessed and treated by their oncologists versus being cared for by a psychiatrist or mental health provider? SUMMARY ANSWER: The majority of patients accepted antidepressant prescribing by their oncologist; only a minority preferred treatment by a mental health professional. These findings are consistent with previous data from medically ill patients that demonstrated a preference for medical providers to address and treat their depression or anxiety. Twenty percent of participants would not want any treatment. Patients who met depression criteria were less likely to prefer a mental health referral. Patients who were already taking an antidepressant or demonstrated higher levels of chronic stress were more likely to prefer a mental health referral. METHODS: Patients with breast cancer (stages 0-IV) were asked two questions: (1) “Would you be willing to have your oncologist treat your depression or anxiety with an antidepressant medication if you were to become depressed or anxious at any point during your treatment?” and (2) “Would you prefer to be treated by a psychiatrist or mental health professional for problems with either anxiety or depression?” In addition, the Distress Thermometer and Problem List, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Risky Families Questionnaire, and demographic information were assessed. BIAS, CONFOUNDING FACTORS, DRAWBACKS: This was a survey of only women who were asked to self-report hypothetical preferences. Although minimal differences were noted for the 16.8% of participants who were already taking an antidepressant medication, it is not clear how they might have interpreted the questions in a more realistic setting. REAL-LIFE IMPLICATIONS: These findings suggest a benefit for promoting education of oncologists to assess psychological symptoms and manage anxiety and depression as a routine part of an outpatient visit. It highlights a fertile opportunity for oncologists to integrate mental health treatment for their patients by beginning pharmacologic treatment, discussing their anxiety or depressive symptoms, and initiating or comanaging pharmacologic treatment of anxiety or depression. Early recognition and management of distress, anxiety, and depression would limit the delay in obtaining appropriate treatment, especially during the first year after a cancer diagnosis when patients are most symptomatic and have many difficult treatment decisions to make. The oncologist’s use of antidepressant medications to treat anxiety and depression may benefit patients most by following guidelines. A collaborative care model offers one potential solution that could establish ownership, expand resources, disseminate knowledge, and provide a system of integration for mental health and oncology providers. [Table: see text]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document