No abstract

IntroductionAdolescent depression is associated with serious consequences. School staff is in a unique position to screen and refer adolescents with depression in a timely manner, and can collaborate with healthcare teams to assist in the proper management of the disease. The objective of this paper is to describe the results of a workshop that aims to improve the knowledge of adolescent depression among school staff.Materials and methodsThis was a single-arm trial with a pre-post design. Six workshops were conducted in four cities in Chile. Each workshop lasted 4 h. Participatory methodology was used. A 26-item knowledge questionnaire about adolescent depression, with the alternatives “I agree,” “I disagree,” and “I don’t know,” was administered to the participants, before and after the workshop.ResultsA total of 152 people participated in the trial. Of these, 74.3% were female, and 44.7% were school psychologists, 25.0%, teachers, 17.8%, school counselors, and 5.3%, social workers. On average, there were 69.6% (SD 21.3) correct responses on the initial test, and 91.8% (SD 8.0) on the final test. All items had an increase of correct answers and a decrease of “don’t know” answers. There were notable increases of correct responses on statements dealing with myths: “Antidepressants for the treatment of depression in adolescents must be avoided because they produce dependence” (59–96%), and “Depression in adolescence is better defined as a weakness of character than as a disease” (75–95%). School psychologists scored higher than the other participants on the questionnaire both before and after the workshop.ConclusionThe workshop: “Adolescent depression: What can schools do?” can improve school staff knowledge of this topic, especially aiding to dispel myths regarding the disease and its treatment. This can help bring about timely case detection and improved collaboration with health team for proper handling of adolescent depression.

An appraisal of healthcare mobile applicationsMobile applications (Apps) may become effective aids in health care. Health Apps could reduce barriers such as access and costs and could be used to monitor symptoms, behaviors and even treatments. There is more evidence of their usefulness in nutrition, cardiovascular and mental health. Despite this, its current use is predominantly for information purposes. Healthcare App quality evaluation should consider both clinical and technological aspects since the evidence on its clinical effectiveness is still incipient and they have associated risks. In Chile, the use of mobile technology and Apps is increasing, but there are no regulations for their use. There are few national institutions oriented to the creation and development of Apps for healthcare, highlighting the Digital Transformation Committee, part of the Corporation for the Promotion of Production (CORFO) and the National Center for Health Information Systems (CENS). General recommendations for healthcare App development and use have been established. In this process, it would be beneficial to include actors involved in care. Given the progress of healthcare Apps worldwide and nationally, it is important that health professionals develop digital skills to maximize the potential benefit of these technologies.

Introduction: Primary health care clinicians play an important role in the management of depression. Thus, it is very important to have a valid and reliable assessment of the competences needed to manage depression in primary health care, with the use of clinical simulation providing such an opportunity. Objective: The present study describes the assessment of primary health care clinicians’ depression-related skills through a series of objective structured clinical examination stations. Material and Methods: Clinicians from multi-professional teams for the management of depression at two primary health care clinics in Santiago, Chile, went through seven objective structured clinical examination stations, lasting 10 to 20 min each, to assess their depression-related skills. The clinical and communicative skills measured were in accordance with clinical guidelines. Standardized patients portrayed cases usually encountered in clinical practice, while expert raters evaluated clinicians’ performance with standardized checklists. Results: Psychosocial clinicians performed better than biomedical clinicians in the assessed skills. The most notable results were as follows: a high level of accomplishment in the relationship with patient, medical anamnesis, health checkup, and lab test requests; heterogeneous performance in patient management according to screening results, feedback to the patient, and registration in clinical records; and major deficiencies in the differential diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Discussion: The objective structured clinical examinations administered provided an opportunity to perform an in-depth examination of the depression-related skills of primary health care clinicians, where flaws in the screening and diagnosis procedures used by biomedical clinicians were detected. Given the significant involvement of these types of clinicians in depression management, undergraduate-level and continuing health education opportunities are needed.

Background: In Chile, there are inconsistencies in the management of depression in primary care settings, and the National Depression Program, currently in effect, was implemented without a standardized training program. The objective of this study is to evaluate the acceptability of a training program on the management of depression for primary care health teams.Methods: The study was a randomized controlled trial, and two primary centers from the Metropolitan Region of Santiago were randomly selected to carry out the intervention training program. Pre-post surveys were applied, to evaluate expectations and satisfaction with the intervention, respectively. Descriptive and content analysis was carried out.Result: The sample consisted of 41 health professionals, 56.1% of who reported that their expectations for the intervention were met. All of the training activities were evaluated with scores higher than 6.4 (on a 1–7 scale). The trainers, the methodology, and the learning environment were considered strengths and facilitators of the program, while the limited duration of the training, the logistical problems faced during part of the program, and the lack of educational material were viewed as weaknesses.Conclusion: The intervention was well accepted by primary health care teams. However, the clinical impact in patients still has to be evaluated.