Research Unit for General Practice, Aarhus University, Denmark.
Scand J Prim Health Care. 2011 Jun;29(2):80-4. doi: 10.3109/02813432.2011.554009. Epub 2011 May 4.
OBJECTIVE. Central health organizations suggest routine screening for depression in high-risk categories of primary care patients. This study compares the effectiveness of high-risk screening versus case-finding in identifying depression in primary care. DESIGN. Using an observational design, participating GPs included patients from 13 predefined risk groups and/or suspected of being depressed. Patients were assessed by the Major Depression Inventory (MDI) and ICD-10 criteria. Setting. Thirty-seven primary care practices in Mainland Denmark. Main outcome measures. Prevalence of depression, diagnostic agreement, effectiveness of screening methods, risk groups requiring special attention. RESULTS. A total of 37 (8.4%) of 440 invited GP practices participated. We found high-risk prevalence of depression in 672 patients for the following traits: (1) previous history of depression, (2) familial predisposition to depression, (3) chronic pain, (4) other mental disorders, and (5) refugee or immigrant. In the total sample, GPs demonstrated a depression diagnostic sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 67% using a case-finding strategy. GP diagnoses of depression agreed well with the MDI (AUC values of 0.91-0.99). The potential added value of high-risk screening was 4.6% (31/672). Patients with other mental disorders were at increased risk of having an unrecognized depression (PR 3.15, 95% CI 1.91-5.20). If patients with other mental disorders were routinely tested, then 42% more depressed patients (14/31) would be recognized. CONCLUSIONS. A broad case-finding approach including a short validation test can help GPs identify depressed patients, particularly by including patients with other mental disorders in this strategy. This exploratory study cannot support the screening strategy proposed by central health organizations.
中央卫生机构建议在初级保健患者的高危类别中进行常规抑郁筛查。本研究比较了高危筛查与病例发现对识别初级保健中抑郁的有效性。
使用观察性设计,参与的全科医生纳入了来自 13 个预先确定的风险组的患者和/或疑似抑郁的患者。患者通过 Major Depression Inventory(MDI)和 ICD-10 标准进行评估。
丹麦大陆的 37 个初级保健实践。
抑郁的患病率、诊断一致性、筛查方法的有效性、需要特别关注的风险组。
共邀请了 440 家 GP 诊所,其中 37 家(8.4%)参与了研究。我们发现,在以下特征中,672 名患者存在高风险的抑郁患病率:(1)既往抑郁病史,(2)家族易患抑郁,(3)慢性疼痛,(4)其他精神障碍,以及(5)难民或移民。在总样本中,GP 使用病例发现策略的抑郁诊断敏感性为 87%,特异性为 67%。GP 对抑郁的诊断与 MDI 高度一致(AUC 值为 0.91-0.99)。高危筛查的潜在附加值为 4.6%(31/672)。患有其他精神障碍的患者患未被识别的抑郁症的风险增加(PR 3.15,95%CI 1.91-5.20)。如果对患有其他精神障碍的患者进行常规检查,那么会发现更多的抑郁患者(14/31),比例增加 42%。
广泛的病例发现方法包括简短的验证测试,可以帮助全科医生识别抑郁患者,特别是通过将患有其他精神障碍的患者纳入这一策略。这项探索性研究不能支持中央卫生机构提出的筛查策略。