Suppr超能文献

常规精神科诊疗中的共病模式:是否存在漏诊和诊断不足的证据?

Comorbidity patterns in routine psychiatric practice: is there evidence of underdetection and underdiagnosis?

作者信息

Wilk Joshua E, West Joyce C, Narrow William E, Marcus Steve, Rubio-Stipec Maritza, Rae Donald S, Pincus Harold A, Regier Darrel A

机构信息

American Psychiatric Institute of Research and Education, Arlington, VA 22209, USA.

出版信息

Compr Psychiatry. 2006 Jul-Aug;47(4):258-64. doi: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2005.08.007. Epub 2006 Apr 19.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to present data on the rates of diagnosis and patterns of Axis I comorbidity treated by psychiatrists in routine psychiatric practice, ascertained by practicing psychiatrists, and compare them with those ascertained through structured interview in a national sample of individuals treated in the specialty mental health sector for evidence of underdetection or underdiagnosis of comorbid disorders in routine psychiatric practice.

METHODS

Data on 2117 psychiatric patients gathered by 754 psychiatrists participating in the 1997 and 1999 American Psychiatric Institute for Research and Education's Practice Research Network's Study of Psychiatric Patients and Treatments (SPPT) were analyzed, assessing psychiatrist-reported rates of Axis I disorders and comorbidities. SPPT data on patients treated by psychiatrists were compared with a clinical subset of patients in the National Comorbidity Survey who had been treated in the specialty mental health sector (SMA).

RESULTS

Rates of comorbidity were higher in the SMA (53.9%) than in the SPPT (31.5%). The prevalence of schizophrenia diagnoses was more than twice as prevalent in the SPPT as in the SMA sample; anxiety disorders were 2 to 22 times more prevalent in the SMA sample. In the SPPT, 4 of the 10 most prevalent comorbid pairs included schizophrenia or bipolar disorder; only one pair in the SMA sample included either diagnoses. Of the 10 most prevalent comorbidity pairings in the SMA sample, 6 included a phobia diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of these analyses suggest greater differences in the patterns and rates of comorbidities than one might expect between these 2 samples. Possible reasons for these disparities, including methodological differences in diagnostic ascertainment and underdiagnosis of anxiety disorders, are discussed.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在呈现精神科医生在常规精神科诊疗中确诊的轴I共病率及模式的数据,这些数据由执业精神科医生确定,并将其与通过结构化访谈在全国专业心理健康部门治疗的个体样本中确定的数据进行比较,以证明常规精神科诊疗中共病障碍的漏诊或诊断不足情况。

方法

分析了754名参与1997年和1999年美国精神科研究与教育学会实践研究网络的精神科患者及治疗研究(SPPT)的精神科医生收集的2117例精神科患者的数据,评估精神科医生报告的轴I障碍及共病率。将精神科医生治疗患者的SPPT数据与全国共病调查中在专业心理健康部门(SMA)接受治疗的患者临床亚组数据进行比较。

结果

SMA中的共病率(53.9%)高于SPPT中的共病率(31.5%)。精神分裂症诊断的患病率在SPPT中是SMA样本中的两倍多;焦虑症在SMA样本中的患病率高2至22倍。在SPPT中,10种最常见的共病对中有4种包括精神分裂症或双相情感障碍;SMA样本中只有一对包括这两种诊断。在SMA样本中10种最常见的共病配对中,6种包括恐惧症诊断。

结论

这些分析结果表明,这两个样本之间共病模式和发生率的差异比预期的更大。讨论了这些差异的可能原因,包括诊断确定方法的差异以及焦虑症的诊断不足。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验