№ lp_1_2_68826
File format: docx
Character count: 37305
File size: 66 KB
A study examining the factors influencing the issuance of long-term sickness certificates for depression in the UK, identifying patient, GP, and practice-level predictors.
Year:
2016
Region / City:
United Kingdom
Topic:
Depression, Sickness Certification
Document Type:
Research Paper
Organization / Institution:
University of Liverpool, Institute for Employment Studies
Author:
Mark Gabbay, Chris Shiels, Jim Hillage
Target Audience:
Researchers, Health Professionals, Policymakers
Period of Action:
2011-2013
Approval Date:
June 2011
Date of Changes:
N/A
Price: 8 / 10 USD
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
Don’t have cryptocurrency yet?
You can still complete your purchase in a few minutes:- Buy Crypto in a trusted app (Coinbase, Kraken, Cash App or any similar service).
- In the app, tap Send.
- Select network, paste our wallet address.
- Send the exact amount shown above.
The final amount may vary slightly depending on the payment method.
The file will be sent to the email address provided at checkout within 24 hours.
The product description is provided for reference. Actual content and formatting may differ slightly.
Year:
2021
Region / City:
United States
Topic:
Postpartum Depression Screening
Document Type:
Informational resource
Organization / Institution:
Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH)
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Health professionals, researchers, and organizations involved in postpartum care
Period of validity:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Context:
List of validated screening tools for detecting postpartum depression with relevant cut-offs and available resources for health professionals.
Year:
2026
Region / city:
UK
Topic:
Genetics, Mental Health
Document Type:
Research Study
Organization / Institution:
King’s College London, Université Laval
Author:
Genevieve Morneau-Vaillancourt, Jonathan R. I. Coleman, Kirstin L. Purves, Rosa Cheesman, Christopher Rayner, Gerome Breen, Thalia C. Eley
Target Audience:
Researchers, Academics, Healthcare Professionals
Period of Action:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Note:
Contextual Description
Year:
2019
Region / city:
United Kingdom
Topic:
Mental health, Alcohol use
Document type:
Guidance
Organization / institution:
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)
Author:
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
Target audience:
Healthcare professionals
Period of validity:
N/A
Approval date:
August 2019
Date of last update:
N/A
Year:
2021
Region / City:
Not specified
Subject:
Clinical Depression Screening
Document Type:
Instructional guideline
Organization:
Not specified
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Healthcare providers, dialysis facilities
Effective Period:
January 1 – December 31, 2021
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Note:
Date
Topic:
Medical Opinion
Document Type:
Independent Medical Opinion
Author:
[Physician’s Name]
Target Audience:
Veterans Affairs (VA) Review Boards, Healthcare Providers
Year:
2022
Region / City:
Australia
Topic:
Mental Health, Depression
Document Type:
Research Article
Institution:
The University of Melbourne
Author:
Hereen D, Rice SM, Zajac I
Target Audience:
Mental Health Professionals, Researchers
Period of Validity:
2022 onwards
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Year:
2017
Region / City:
United Kingdom
Document Type:
Formulary Application
Department:
Medicines Committee / Gynaecology
Applicant:
Consultant (name not specified)
Speciality:
Gynaecology
Intended Use:
PMS, postnatal depression, perimenopause in patients with progestogen/progesterone intolerance
Dosage Form:
Vaginal capsules 200mg
Regulatory Status:
Off-label use
Estimated Patient Numbers:
Not specified
Estimated Cost:
£21.00 per 21 vaginal capsules
Supporting Evidence:
Randomised controlled trials and peer-reviewed publications
Approval Required By:
Divisional Medical Director, Lead Directorate Pharmacist
Signatures:
Applicant, Divisional Medical Director, Lead Directorate Pharmacist
Year:
2025
Region / City:
Houston
Topic:
Mental Health, Depression
Document Type:
Conference Program
Organization / Institution:
UTHealth Houston
Author:
Jair C. Soares, MD, PhD; Lokesh Shahani, MD, MPH, PhD; Taiwo Babatope, MD; Joao de Quevedo, MD, PhD; Sanjay J. Mathew, MD; Luis Fernandez-Wische, MD
Target Audience:
Medical professionals, researchers, clinicians
Period of Validity:
October 17-18, 2025
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Year:
2024
Institution:
Bryant & Stratton College
Course:
JHUSS235
Professor:
Slade
Author:
Jade Arrington
Document Type:
Academic Paper / Final Project
Topic:
Crisis Intervention, Mental Health, Child Protection
Target Audience:
Students, Mental Health Practitioners
Date of Completion:
December 16, 2024
Context:
Case study focusing on a client named Marie with depression, suicidal ideation, and unsafe home conditions
Grade Level:
5th Grade
Author:
Mirishka Kimbrough
Subject:
Social Studies, English Language Arts, Science, Music, Mathematics, Fine Arts
Topic:
Great Depression in the United States
Geographical Focus:
United States
Educational Standards:
Missouri Show Me Standards; Common Core State Standards (CCSS)
Key Themes:
Causes and effects of the Great Depression; Dust Bowl; economic comparison between the 1930s and 2014; cultural and musical context
Type of Document:
Curriculum unit plan
Intended Audience:
5th Grade students
Learning Objectives:
Understanding historical significance, economic differences over time, cultural context, and interdisciplinary connections
Year:
1930s
Region / City:
United States
Topic:
American History, Economic Crisis
Document Type:
Lesson Plan
Organization / Institution:
Teacher Created
Author:
Erin Tarpley
Target Audience:
5th grade students
Period of Action:
1920s-1930s
Date of Approval:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Year:
1980–1998
Type:
Questionnaires / Inventories
Subjects:
Depression, Anxiety, Epilepsy, Stigma, Adverse Effects of AEDs, Caregiver Burden
Instruments:
Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), QOLIE-31, Liverpool Stigma Scale, Liverpool Adverse Events Profile (LAEP), Zarit Caregiver Burden Inventory (ZCBI)
Authors:
Beck, Cramer, Jacoby, Baker, Zarit et al.
Population:
Patients with epilepsy and their caregivers
Scoring:
Various Likert scales and total scores indicating severity or burden
Year:
2013
Region / City:
United States
Topic:
Mental Health, Depression Screening
Document Type:
Survey Instrument
Organization / Institution:
Self-Management Resource Center
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Individuals with chronic conditions, researchers
Effective Period:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Shanghai, China
Topic:
Cognitive Training, Emotional Regulation, Mental Health
Document Type:
Meta-Analysis
Organization / Institution:
Shanghai University of Sport
Author:
Jiehang Ou, Hong Mou, Ting Zhou, Yingying Wang
Target Audience:
Researchers, Mental Health Professionals, Students
Period of Application:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Medicare Benefit:
Reimbursed screening for depression in adults once-a-year under Fee-for-Service Medicare available since October 14, 2011; no coinsurance; no deductible for patient
Procedure Code:
G0444 (Depression Screen – 15 minutes)
Eligibility:
Primary care settings with depression care supports in place
Points of Care Eligible for Reimbursement:
Primary care office; outpatient hospital; independent clinic; federally qualified health center (FQHC); state and local health clinic; rural health clinic (RHC)
Referral Options:
Local community mental health center; American Psychiatric Association; American Psychological Association; National Association of Social Work
Recommended Screening Tool:
Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9); PHQ-2
Severity Classification:
PHQ-9 score ranges from 0 to 20 or greater with corresponding provisional diagnoses and treatment considerations
Assessment of Suicidal Risk:
Follow-up questions based on response to PHQ-9 item 9; adapted from the P4 screener
Adapted From:
Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Psychiatric Annals 2002; Dube P et al., Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry 2010
Developed By:
Patient Centered Primary Care Coalition Behavioral Health Workgroup
Approval Status:
Board Approval Pending
Subject:
Medicare reimbursement policy and clinical guidance for adult depression screening in primary care
Document Type:
Policy and clinical guidance document
Year:
2026
Region / City:
England
Topic:
Higher Education, Governance
Document Type:
Form
Institution:
University of Leicester
Author:
University of Leicester
Target Audience:
University Council, Executive Board, Senior Management
Period of Validity:
Annual
Approval Date:
N/A
Date of Changes:
N/A
Year:
2023
Region / City:
United Kingdom
Theme:
Colorectal Cancer Referral Guidelines
Document Type:
Medical Guidelines
Organization:
National Health Service (NHS)
Author:
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI)
Target Audience:
Healthcare professionals in primary and secondary care
Effective Period:
From August 2023
Date of Approval:
August 2023
Date of Amendments:
None mentioned
) and join the S1NET. For guides with in depth examinations of performance measure definitions, go to:
https://www.milsuite.mil/book/docs/DOC-129783
Table of Contents (Hyperlinks to Sections):
Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ OER Narratives: Notes, Rules, and Instructions OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: Negative Comment Rules Referred OERs Narrative Comment Examples Block a. APFT and HT/WT Block b. Overall Performance Block c. Character (to include SHARP comments) Block d. Presence Block e. Intellect Block f. Leads Block g. Develops Block h. Achieves Senior Rater Potential Senior Rater Narrative Examples Senior Rater Narrative Comment Examples (for potential, promotion, school, etc.) Successive Assignments Other SR Comments (explanations of anything unusual about OER) Effective Words for Evaluations JUNIOR OFFICER PLATE (DA FORM 67-10-1) NOTE: 2LTs who have NOT completed BOLC, will not receive an OER until they complete BOLC (AC and ARNG; USAR officers can receive an OER before completing BOLC). The FROM date will be their commissioning date. All time until their BOLC graduation will be NONRATED on their first OER. OER PROFILING: OERs: Rater and Senior Rater Profiles are CONSTRAINED, meaning Officers are only allowed to grant 49% of each rank they rate with either an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). HOWEVER, if you have an immature profile, and have only just begun rating/senior rating Officers of a certain rank, you are allowed a ONE TIME option of giving one of the first two evaluations you make at a particular grade, an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). OER (OER SUPPORT FORM) PART III: Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ (blocks a., b., and c.): Refer to DA PAM 611-21 (https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/smartbookdapam611-21
) and DA PAM 600-3 (Commissioned Officer Professional Development and Career Management), to assist in the development of PART III, block d. As a minimum, the duty description will include pr:
- Number of personnel supervised, - Amount of resources under the rated officer’s control, - Scope of responsibilities. 3) Descriptions must be clear and concise with emphasis on specific functions required. 4) Note conditions unique to the assignment; e.g. RA officers assigned to FT support duties with RC units or USAR officers assigned to RA units OER NARRATIVES: Notes, Rules, and Instructions Rater and Senior Rater Narratives: - Requires candor and courage; frank and accurate assessment. - Quantify officer’s value relative to peers and do so in concert with rater/senior rater box check. - Are short; tell a simple story about the quality of officer being evaluated. - Are interesting and compelling. - Are looked at by selection board members when they are looking for in-depth information about a rated officer’s performance and potential. - Numbers; 1-10, write them out (e.g. one, two, ten). 11 or higher, write the number; e.g. 11, 15, 105. Exception, when a 1-10 is WITH an 11 or higher; e.g. “5 tool kits with 20 tools each.” - Fashion the narrative to the officer; double check use of “he/his” vs. “she/hers.” - Awards: Awards and/or special recognition received during the rating period may be cited in evaluation comments (for example, “received the Humanitarian Service Medal” or “named the Instructor of the Year”). - Raters and SR CAN use the officer’s name in the narrative; e.g. “1LT Joe was ….” Rater and Rater Narratives: - Focus on PERFORMANCE; explaining what the rated officer did and how well he/she did it. - Focus on specifics to quantify and qualify performance. - Raters should advocate the rated officer to the SR. - When there is no SR (due to lack of qualifications), rater’s narrative provides the input on both performance and potential. Senior Rater (SR) and SR Narrative (see SR Rater Narrative section for examples): - Focus on POTENTIAL, 3-5 years out (promotions, command, school, & assignments). - Can amplify box checks by using the narrative to clearly send the appropriate message to selection boards. - CANNOT mention Box Check. - Additional information for when SR is also Rater can be found in DA PAM 623-3, pg. 26, “DA Form 67–10–1, part VI: block c—Senior Rater Narrative.” OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: - School/Course Comments: Bullets about how a Soldier did in a school or course are ONLY allowed if that school did not produce an AER/DA Form 1059. - Narratives are not a laundry list of superlatives – more is not necessarily better. - Brief, unqualified superlatives or phrases, particularly if they may be considered trite. - Excessive use of technical acronyms, or phrases not commonly recognized. - Techniques aimed at making specific words, phrases, or sentences stand out from the rest of the narrative; e.g. excessive use of capital letters; unnecessary quotation marks; repeated use of exclamation points; wide spacing between selected words, phrases, or sentences to include double spacing within a paragraph or between paragraphs. - Inappropriate references to box checks; e.g “Would be TOP BLOCK if profile allowed” or “absolutely far exceeded the standard”. - Trying to quantify (e.g. “top 2% of my captains”) with a small population. - Stay in your lane/level; avoid comments like “Best 1LT in the Army” unless you’re the Army CoS. - Stating “the best ever”; having 10 in the population, 50 in the profile. - Using overused phrases and clichés that are counterproductive or overused; e.g. stellar, historic, “delivered a dazzling performance,” “hit the ground running,” consummate professional, and unlimited potential. - Using specific selection board-type language. Examples of this include, “definitely a 6+ Soldier”. - Don’t exaggerate; “If I could prove it, CPT X is an LTC disguised as a CPT.” - Be mindful of what IS NOT said; it can have the same impact as what is said; e.g. NOT having numbers, or quantifiable points. - Don’t say the sa
Note:
en
Topic:
Officer Evaluation, Narrative Guidelines
Document Type:
Guide
Target Audience:
Raters, Senior Raters
Note:
Year
Organization / Institution:
UN Environment Programme (UNEP)
Target Audience:
Insurance organizations, stakeholders in climate action