Suppr超能文献

评估两种心理困扰测量方法作为普通人群抑郁症筛查工具的效果。

Evaluation of 2 measures of psychological distress as screeners for depression in the general population.

作者信息

Cairney John, Veldhuizen Scott, Wade Terrance J, Kurdyak Paul, Streiner David L

机构信息

Health Systems Research and Consulting Unit, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario.

出版信息

Can J Psychiatry. 2007 Feb;52(2):111-20. doi: 10.1177/070674370705200209.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Structured diagnostic interviews are very time-consuming and therefore increase both the expense and the respondent burden in epidemiologic surveys. A 2-staged interview that screens potential cases before the full diagnostic instrument is administered has the potential to greatly reduce the average interview length. In this paper, we evaluate 2 measures of psychological distress (the Kessler 6- and 10-Item Psychological Distress Scales [K6 and K10]) as potential screening instruments for depression.

METHODS

We use data from Cycle 1.2 of the Canadian Community Health Survey and receiver operator characteristic analysis to examine the agreement between the K6 and K10 and the World Mental Health Composite International Diagnostic Interview module for major depression (1-month and 12-month estimates).

RESULTS

Of the respondents, 823 were positive for 1-month depression (2.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8% to 2.2%), and 1930 were positive for 12-month depression (4.8%; 95%CI, 4.5% to 5.1%). Both the K6 and K10 performed very well as predictors of 1-month depression, with areas under the curve (AUC) of 0.929 (95%CI, 0.908 to 0.949) for the K10 and 0.926 (95%CI, 0.905 to 0.947) for the K6. For 12-month depression, the AUCs remained good at 0.866 (95%CI, 0.848 to 0.883) for the K10 and 0.858 (95%CI, 0.840 to 0.876) for the K6.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the K6 and the K10 appear to be excellent screening instruments, especially for current depression. Although performance of the 2 instruments is similar, the K6 is more attractive for use as a screening instrument because of the lower response burden.

摘要

目的

结构化诊断访谈非常耗时,因此会增加流行病学调查的费用和受访者负担。在使用完整诊断工具之前先进行筛选潜在病例的两阶段访谈,有可能大幅缩短平均访谈时长。在本文中,我们评估两种心理困扰测量方法(凯斯勒6项和10项心理困扰量表 [K6和K10])作为抑郁症潜在筛查工具的情况。

方法

我们使用加拿大社区健康调查第1.2轮的数据,并通过接受者操作特征分析来检验K6和K10与世界心理健康综合国际诊断访谈模块中关于重度抑郁症(1个月和12个月估计值)之间的一致性。

结果

在受访者中,823人1个月抑郁症呈阳性(2.0%;95%置信区间 [CI],1.8%至2.2%),1930人12个月抑郁症呈阳性(4.8%;95%CI,4.5%至5.1%)。K6和K10作为1个月抑郁症的预测指标表现都非常出色,K10的曲线下面积(AUC)为0.929(95%CI,0.908至0.949),K6的为0.926(95%CI,0.905至0.947)。对于12个月抑郁症,K10的AUC为0.866(95%CI,0.848至0.883),K6的为0.858(95%CI,0.840至0.876),仍然良好。

结论

K6和K10似乎都是出色的筛查工具,尤其是对于当前抑郁症。虽然这两种工具的表现相似,但由于应答负担较低,K6作为筛查工具更具吸引力。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验