The diagnostic process from primary care to child and adolescent mental healthcare services: the incremental value of information conveyed through referral letters, screening questionnaires and structured multi-informant assessment

Abstract

Background A variety of information sources are used in the best-evidence diagnostic procedure in child and adolescent mental healthcare, including evaluation by referrers and structured assessment questionnaires for parents. However, the incremental value of these information sources is still poorly examined. Aims To quantify the added and unique predictive value of referral letters, screening, multi-informant assessment and clinicians’ remote evaluations in predicting mental health disorders. Method Routine medical record data on 1259 referred children and adolescents were retrospectively extracted. Their referral letters, responses to the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), results on closed-ended questions from the Development and Well-Being Assessment (DAWBA) and its clinician-rated version were linked to classifications made after face-to-face intake in psychiatry. Following multiple imputations of missing data, logistic regression analyses were performed with the above four nodes of assessment as predictors and the five childhood disorders common in mental healthcare (anxiety, depression, autism spectrum disorders, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, behavioural disorders) as outcomes. Likelihood ratio tests and diagnostic odds ratios were computed. Results Each assessment tool significantly predicted the classified outcome. Successive addition of the assessment instruments improved the prediction models, with the exception of behavioural disorder prediction by the clinician-rated DAWBA. With the exception of the SDQ for depressive and behavioural disorders, all instruments showed unique predictive value. Conclusions Structured acquisition and integrated use of diverse sources of information supports evidence-based diagnosis in clinical practice. The clinical value of structured assessment at the primary–secondary care interface should now be quantified in prospective studies.