Evaluation of a screening algorithm using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire to identify children with mental health problems: A five-year register-based follow-up on school performance and healthcare use.

BACKGROUND:Treatment of mental health problems (MHP) is often delayed or absent due to the lack of systematic detection and early intervention. This study evaluates the potential of a new screening algorithm to identify children with MHP. METHODS:The study population comprises 2,015 children from the Copenhagen Child Cohort 2000 whose mental health was assessed at age 11-12 years and who had no prior use of specialised mental health services. A new algorithm based on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) is utilised to identify MHP by combining parent-reported scores of emotional and behavioural problems and functional impairments. The screening is done on historical data, implying that neither parents, teachers nor health care professionals received any feedback on the screening status. The screening status and results of an IQ-test were linked to individual-level data from national registries. These national registers include records of each child's school performance at the end of compulsory schooling, their health care utilisation, as well as their parents' socio-economic status and health care utilisation. RESULTS:10% of the children screen positive for MHP. The children with MHP achieve a significantly lower Grade Point Average on their exams, independently of their IQ-score, perinatal factors and parental characteristics. On average, the children with MHP also carry higher health care costs over a five-year follow-up period. The higher health care costs are only attributed to 23% of these children, while the remaining children with MHP also show poorer school performance but receive no additional health care. CONCLUSIONS:The results demonstrate that children with MHP and a poor prognosis can be identified by the use of the brief standardised questionnaire SDQ combined with a screening algorithm

Physicians under Pressure:Evidence from Antibiotics Prescribing in England

BACKGROUND: Many physicians are experiencing increasing demands from both their patients and society. Evidence is scarce on the consequences of the pressure on physicians’ decision making. We present a theoretical framework and predict that increasing pressure may make physicians disregard societal welfare when treating patients. SETTING: We test our prediction on general practitioners’ antibiotic-prescribing choices. Because prescribing broad-spectrum antibiotics does not require microbiological testing, it can be performed more quickly than prescribing for narrow-spectrum antibiotics and is therefore often preferred by the patient. In contrast, from a societal perspective, inappropriate prescribing of broad-spectrum antibiotics should be minimized as it may contribute to antimicrobial resistance in the general population. METHODS: We combine longitudinal survey data and administrative data from 2010 to 2017 to create a balanced panel of up to 1072 English general practitioners (GPs). Using a series of linear models with GP fixed effects, we estimate the importance of different sources of pressure for GPs’ prescribing. RESULTS: We find that the percentage of broad-spectrum antibiotics prescribed increases by 6.4% as pressure increases on English GPs. The link between pressure and prescribing holds for different sources of pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that there may be societal costs of physicians working under pressure. Policy makers need to take these costs into account when evaluating existing policies as well as when introducing new policies affecting physicians’ work pressure. An important avenue for further research is also to determine the underlying mechanisms related to the different sources of pressure.JEL-code: I11, J28, J45 HIGHLIGHTS: Many physicians are working under increasing pressure. We test the importance of pressure on physicians’ prescribing of antibiotics. The prescribed rate of broad-spectrum antibiotics increases with pressure. Policy makers should be aware of the societal costs of pressured physicians. [Image: see text

Work pressure and job dissatisfaction: Challenges in Danish general practice

A main objective of the Nordic healthcare systems is to deliver timely and equal access to high-quality healthcare to the entire population. Health care providers, such as general practitioners (GPs), may therefore experience pressure to deliver care from both the health authorities and patients. However, if GPs’ gains do not outweigh their costs of providing the demanded care, it may lead to job dissatisfaction and thereby potentially to poorer quality of care. This study contributes to the literature by estimating the association between different sources of experienced work pressure and job dissatisfaction among GPs. We use data from a nation-wide survey of Danish GPs distributed in 2019. The study includes six items covering GPs’ experienced work pressure, which we categorise based on the degree to which they are related to demands from either patients or health authorities. Using a series of ordered logit models with a rich set of explanatory variables, we estimate the association between the pressure measures and GP job dissatisfaction. We find that GPs reporting high or considerable work pressure have an increased likelihood of also reporting job dissatisfaction. However, we find considerable heterogeneity in this relationship across different sources of work pressure as well as across GP, practice, and area characteristics. For example, the relationship between pressure from patients’ demands for consultations and job dissatisfaction is stronger among GPs practicing in areas with an undersupply of GPs. Solo practitioners, who cannot share their administrative burdens with colleagues, experience a stronger association between pressure from the health authorities and job dissatisfaction. Policymakers should consider this heterogeneity when implementing new schemes and organisational structures affecting GPs’ work pressure. Published: Online January 2022