Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States of America.
Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States of America.
J Affect Disord. 2018 Apr 1;230:50-55. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2017.12.068. Epub 2018 Jan 3.
Prescription records, manual chart review, and patient self-report are each imperfect measures of depression treatment in HIV-infected adults.
We compared antidepressant prescription records in an electronic data warehouse with antidepressant treatment and psychotherapy identified via manual chart review and self-report for patients at 6 academic HIV treatment centers. We examined concordance among these three sources, and used latent class analysis (LCA) to estimate sensitivity and specificity of each measure.
In our charts sample (n = 586), 59% had chart indication of "any depression treatment" and 46% had a warehouse prescription record. Antidepressant use was concordant between charts and data warehouse for 77% of the sample. In our self-report sample (n = 677), 52% reported any depression treatment and 43% had a warehouse prescription record. Self-report of antidepressant treatment was consistent with prescription records for 71% of the sample. LCA estimates of sensitivity and specificity for "any depression treatment" were 67% and 90% (warehouse), 87% and 75% (self-report), and 96% and 77% (chart).
There is no gold standard to measure depression treatment. Antidepressants may be prescribed to patients for conditions other than depression. The results may not be generalizable to patient populations in non-academic HIV clinics. Regarding LCA, dependence of errors may have led to overestimation of sensitivity and specificity.
Prescription records were largely concordant with self-report and chart review, but there were discrepancies. Studies of depression in HIV-infected patients would benefit from using multiple measures of depression treatment or correcting for exposure misclassification.
处方记录、手动图表审查和患者自我报告在评估 HIV 感染成人的抑郁治疗方面均存在缺陷。
我们比较了 6 个学术性 HIV 治疗中心的电子数据仓库中的抗抑郁药物处方记录与通过手动图表审查和自我报告发现的抗抑郁药物治疗和心理治疗。我们检查了这三种来源的一致性,并使用潜在类别分析(LCA)来估计每种方法的敏感性和特异性。
在我们的图表样本(n=586)中,59%有“任何抑郁治疗”的图表指征,46%有仓库处方记录。在样本的 77%中,抗抑郁药物的使用在图表和数据仓库之间是一致的。在我们的自我报告样本(n=677)中,52%报告了任何抑郁治疗,43%有仓库处方记录。在样本的 71%中,自我报告的抗抑郁药物治疗与处方记录一致。对于“任何抑郁治疗”,LCA 估计的敏感性和特异性分别为 67%和 90%(仓库)、87%和 75%(自我报告)和 96%和 77%(图表)。
没有黄金标准来衡量抑郁治疗。抗抑郁药物可能会开给患有其他疾病而非抑郁的患者。结果可能不适用于非学术性 HIV 诊所的患者人群。关于 LCA,误差的依赖性可能导致敏感性和特异性的高估。
处方记录与自我报告和图表审查基本一致,但存在差异。在 HIV 感染患者中进行的抑郁研究将受益于使用多种抑郁治疗措施或纠正暴露错误分类。