*Chester M. Pierce, MD Division of Global Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; †Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Global Health, Boston, MA; ‡Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; §Mbarara University of Science and Technology, Mbarara, Uganda.
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2014 Aug 15;66(5):503-11. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000000210.
The aim of this study was to systematically review the reliability and validity of instruments used to screen for major depressive disorder or assess depression symptom severity among persons with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa.
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
A systematic evidence search protocol was applied to 7 bibliographic databases. Studies examining the reliability and/or validity of depression assessment tools were selected for inclusion if they were based on the data collected from HIV-positive adults in any African member state of the United Nations. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to calculate pooled estimates of depression prevalence. In a subgroup of studies of criterion-related validity, the bivariate random-effects model was used to calculate pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity.
Of 1117 records initially identified, I included 13 studies of 5373 persons with HIV in 7 sub-Saharan African countries. Reported estimates of Cronbach alpha ranged from 0.63 to 0.95, and analyses of internal structure generally confirmed the existence of a depression-like construct accounting for a substantial portion of variance. The pooled prevalence of probable depression was 29.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 20.5 to 39.4], whereas the pooled prevalence of major depressive disorder was 13.9% (95% CI: 9.7 to 18.6). The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale was the most frequently studied instrument, with a pooled sensitivity of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.73 to 0.87) for detecting major depressive disorder.
Depression-screening instruments yielded relatively high false positive rates. Overall, few studies described the reliability and/or validity of depression instruments in sub-Saharan Africa.
本研究旨在系统地回顾在撒哈拉以南非洲地区,用于筛查艾滋病毒感染者的重大抑郁障碍或评估抑郁症状严重程度的工具的信度和效度。
系统综述和荟萃分析。
应用系统的证据搜索方案,对 7 个文献数据库进行了搜索。如果研究是基于从联合国任何非洲成员国的艾滋病毒阳性成年人那里收集的数据,且评估了抑郁评估工具的信度和/或效度,则将其纳入研究。采用随机效应荟萃分析计算抑郁患病率的合并估计值。在具有相关标准效度的研究子集中,采用双变量随机效应模型计算敏感性和特异性的合并估计值。
最初确定的 1117 条记录中,我纳入了来自 7 个撒哈拉以南非洲国家的 5373 名艾滋病毒感染者的 13 项研究。报告的 Cronbach alpha 估计值范围从 0.63 到 0.95,内部结构分析通常证实了存在一个抑郁样结构,该结构占很大一部分方差。可能患有抑郁症的人群的合并患病率为 29.5%(95%置信区间:20.5 至 39.4),而重度抑郁症的合并患病率为 13.9%(95%置信区间:9.7 至 18.6)。流行病学研究中心抑郁量表是研究最多的工具,检测重度抑郁症的合并敏感性为 0.82(95%置信区间:0.73 至 0.87)。
抑郁筛查工具的假阳性率相对较高。总体而言,很少有研究描述了撒哈拉以南非洲地区的抑郁工具的信度和/或效度。