Applied Health Sciences (Mental Health), University of Aberdeen, Clinical Research Centre, Royal Cornhill Hospital, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZH, United Kingdom.
J Affect Disord. 2011 Apr;130(1-2):99-105. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2010.10.010. Epub 2010 Nov 4.
Non-psychiatric physicians are better at correctly ruling out depressive disorders than appropriately recognising them. However, given large numbers of non-depressed patients, a small percentage of false positives equates to a greater number of patients than the number of depressed patients that GPs fail to detect. Concern thus arises that substantial numbers of patients with falsely identified depression may receive inappropriate interventions.
Unselected GP consulters were screened with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). GPs' perceptions of depression were independently rated on an ICD-10 scale. Case records were reviewed. Analysis related to participants with HADS-D<8. Data were assessed of 660 participants with sub-threshold symptoms. Factors were assessed according to GP ratings.
GP perceived depression in false positive cases were more likely at index visit, to have a mental health presenting problem (OR=6.74 (95% CI=3.21, 14.16); receive antidepressant prescriptions (OR 3.79 (95% CI=1.69, 8.49) and have greater severity of HADS-D score (OR 1.18 (95% CI=1.01, 1.38). Subthreshold cases that GPs identified as depressed, more often had a recording, over subsequent six months, of: depressive symptoms (16 (35%) versus 26 (7%), p<0.001); antidepressant prescriptions (11 (24%) versus 25 (7%), p=0.001); and Community Mental Health Team referrals (4 (9%) versus 1 (<1%), p=0.001). They also consulted GPs more frequently than those not identified (median=5 (IQR 2.8, 6.3) versus median=3 (IQR=2, 5), p=0.004 over six months.
The HADS is not a diagnostic tool.
GPs' diagnoses of depressive disorder in patients with sub-threshold symptoms were appropriate. Interventions offered to this group were consistent with documented previous histories.
非精神科医生在正确排除抑郁症方面比正确识别抑郁症更擅长。然而,鉴于大量非抑郁患者,一小部分假阳性等同于比全科医生未能发现的抑郁患者更多的患者。因此,人们担心大量被错误识别为抑郁的患者可能会接受不适当的干预。
使用医院焦虑和抑郁量表(HADS)对未经选择的全科医生顾问进行筛查。医生对抑郁的看法独立按 ICD-10 量表进行评分。对病历进行了回顾。分析与 HADS-D<8 的参与者有关。对有亚阈值症状的 660 名参与者的数据进行了评估。根据全科医生的评分评估了因素。
在初次就诊时,GP 认为假阳性病例中存在抑郁的可能性更大,更有可能出现心理健康问题(OR=6.74(95%CI=3.21, 14.16);接受抗抑郁药处方(OR 3.79(95%CI=1.69, 8.49);HADS-D 评分更严重(OR 1.18(95%CI=1.01, 1.38)。GP 认为抑郁的亚阈值病例,在随后的六个月中,更常记录到:抑郁症状(16(35%)与 26(7%),p<0.001);抗抑郁药处方(11(24%)与 25(7%),p=0.001);和社区心理健康团队转介(4(9%)与 1(<1%),p=0.001)。与未被识别的患者相比,他们更频繁地咨询全科医生(中位数=5(IQR 2.8, 6.3)与中位数=3(IQR=2, 5),p=0.004,六个月)。
HADS 不是诊断工具。
全科医生对有亚阈值症状的患者诊断为抑郁障碍是恰当的。为这一群体提供的干预措施与以往的记录相符。