Treatment of Adolescent Depression: Comparison of Psychiatric and Pediatric Settings at an Academic Medical Center Using the VitalSign⁶ Application

Background: Similar outcomes and remission rates have been found for the treatment of depression in adults in primary and psychiatric care settings. However, comparatively little is known about how pediatric depression is managed across different settings. This study aims to address this gap by comparing depression treatment in pediatric and psychiatric settings. We hypothesized that pediatric care settings would be more likely to treat individuals with lower depression severity and would select pharmacotherapy less frequently as a treatment option. Methods: Patients (n = 3498) were screened for depression at a children’s hospital from May 2017 to May 2022 as part of the VitalSign⁶ project, a web-based application for depression management. The two-item patient health questionnaire (PHQ) was used for screening, and the data set contains patient-reported measures and provider-reported diagnoses and treatment selections at each clinic visit. Patients with nine-item PHQ (PHQ-9) scores ‡10 at baseline were included in the analysis to compare diagnosis and treatment recommendations between pediatric and psychiatric settings. Results: Among the 1323 patients who screened positive for depression, those in psychiatric settings had higher PHQ-9 scores (15.9 – 5.0 vs. 12.1 – 5.5; p < 0.0001). Patients with PHQ-9 ‡ 10 in psychiatric settings were more likely to be diagnosed with major depressive disorder (60.6% vs. 24.7%, p < 0.0001) and receive pharmacotherapy (54.8% vs. 6.6%) than those in pediatric settings. Pediatric setting patients were more likely to receive nonpharmacological treatment alone (36.3% vs. 4.3%) or an outside referral (27.7% vs. 5.7%). Remission rates did not significantly differ between the two settings. Conclusions: Youth in psychiatric settings are more likely to screen positive for depression and to have greater depression severity than those in pediatric settings. Both settings provide treatment recommendations for moderate-to-severe depression, but treatment types vary substantially. Yet, remission rates remain similar. Further research is needed to understand the nuances of treatment differences and their implications.