↓ Skip to main content

Utilization of a mental health collaborative care model among patients who require interpreter services

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Mental Health Systems, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Utilization of a mental health collaborative care model among patients who require interpreter services
Published in
International Journal of Mental Health Systems, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13033-016-0044-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jane W. Njeru, Ramona S. DeJesus, Jennifer St. Sauver, Lila J. Rutten, Debra J. Jacobson, Patrick Wilson, Mark L. Wieland

Abstract

Immigrants and refugees to the United States have a higher prevalence of depression compared to the general population and are less likely to receive adequate mental health services and treatment. Those with limited English proficiency (LEP) are at an even higher risk of inadequate mental health care. Collaborative care management (CCM) models for depression are effective in achieving treatment goals among a wide range of patient populations, including patients with LEP. The purpose of this study was to assess the utilization of a statewide initiative that uses CCM for depression management, among patients with LEP in a large primary care practice. This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with depression in a large primary care practice in Minnesota. Patients who met criteria for enrollment into the CCM [with a provider-generated diagnosis of depression or dysthymia in the electronic medical records, and a Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) score ≥10]. Patient-identified need for interpreter services was used as a proxy for LEP. Rates of enrollment into the DIAMOND (Depression Improvement Across Minnesota, Offering A New Direction) program, a statewide initiative that uses CCM for depression management were measured. These rates were compared between eligible patients who require interpreter services versus patients who do not. Of the 7561 patients who met criteria for enrollment into the DIAMOND program during the study interval, 3511 were enrolled. Only 18.2 % of the eligible patients with LEP were enrolled into DIAMOND compared with the 47.2 % of the eligible English proficient patients. This finding persisted after adjustment for differences in age, gender and depression severity scores (adjusted OR [95 % confidence interval] = 0.43 [0.23, 0.81]). Within primary care practices, tailored interventions are needed, including those that address cultural competence and language navigation, to improve the utilization of this effective model among patients with LEP.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 122 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 16%
Student > Master 19 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Other 22 18%
Unknown 30 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 26 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 16%
Social Sciences 17 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 37 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 May 2016.
All research outputs
#20,326,948
of 22,870,727 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Mental Health Systems
#659
of 718 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#251,333
of 297,608 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Mental Health Systems
#26
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,870,727 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 718 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 297,608 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.