• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

自我管理的抑郁问卷与患者自身对情绪变化的看法之间的比较:一项初级保健中的前瞻性队列研究。

Comparison between self-administered depression questionnaires and patients' own views of changes in their mood: a prospective cohort study in primary care.

作者信息

Hobbs Catherine, Lewis Gemma, Dowrick Christopher, Kounali Daphne, Peters Tim J, Lewis Glyn

机构信息

Department of Psychology, University of Bath, BathBA2 7AY, UK.

Division of Psychiatry, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, LondonW1T 7NF, UK.

出版信息

Psychol Med. 2021 Apr;51(5):853-860. doi: 10.1017/S0033291719003878. Epub 2020 Jan 20.

DOI:10.1017/S0033291719003878
PMID:31957623
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8108392/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Self-administered questionnaires are widely used in primary care and other clinical settings to assess the severity of depressive symptoms and monitor treatment outcomes. Qualitative studies have found that changes in questionnaire scores might not fully capture patients' experience of changes in their mood but there are no quantitative studies of this issue. We examined the extent to which changes in scores from depression questionnaires disagreed with primary care patients' perceptions of changes in their mood and investigated factors influencing this relationship.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study assessing patients on four occasions, 2 weeks apart. Patients (N = 554) were recruited from primary care surgeries in three UK sites (Bristol, Liverpool and York) and had reported depressive symptoms or low mood in the past year [68% female, mean age 48.3 (s.d. 12.6)]. Main outcome measures were changes in scores on patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9) and beck depression inventory (BDI-II) and the patients' own ratings of change.

RESULTS

There was marked disagreement between clinically important changes in questionnaire scores and patient-rated change, with disagreement of 51% (95% CI 46-55%) on PHQ-9 and 55% (95% CI 51-60%) on BDI-II. Patients with more severe anxiety were less likely, and those with better mental and physical health-related quality of life were more likely, to report feeling better, having controlled for depression scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results illustrate the limitations of self-reported depression scales to assess clinical change. Clinicians should be cautious in interpreting changes in questionnaire scores without further clinical assessment.

摘要

背景

自我管理问卷在初级保健和其他临床环境中被广泛用于评估抑郁症状的严重程度和监测治疗效果。定性研究发现问卷得分的变化可能无法完全反映患者情绪变化的体验,但尚无关于此问题的定量研究。我们研究了抑郁问卷得分的变化与初级保健患者对其情绪变化的感知之间的不一致程度,并调查了影响这种关系的因素。

方法

前瞻性队列研究,对患者进行四次评估,每次间隔2周。患者(N = 554)从英国三个地点(布里斯托尔、利物浦和约克)的初级保健诊所招募,过去一年中报告有抑郁症状或情绪低落[68%为女性,平均年龄48.3(标准差12.6)]。主要结局指标为患者健康问卷(PHQ - 9)和贝克抑郁量表(BDI - II)得分的变化以及患者自己对变化的评分。

结果

问卷得分的临床重要变化与患者自评变化之间存在明显不一致,PHQ - 9的不一致率为51%(95%可信区间46 - 55%),BDI - II的不一致率为55%(95%可信区间51 - 60%)。在控制抑郁得分后,焦虑程度较重的患者报告感觉好转的可能性较小,而心理健康和与身体健康相关的生活质量较好的患者报告感觉好转的可能性较大。

结论

我们的结果说明了自我报告抑郁量表在评估临床变化方面的局限性。临床医生在没有进一步临床评估的情况下,对问卷得分变化的解释应谨慎。

相似文献

1
Comparison between self-administered depression questionnaires and patients' own views of changes in their mood: a prospective cohort study in primary care.自我管理的抑郁问卷与患者自身对情绪变化的看法之间的比较:一项初级保健中的前瞻性队列研究。
Psychol Med. 2021 Apr;51(5):853-860. doi: 10.1017/S0033291719003878. Epub 2020 Jan 20.
2
3
Patient-reported outcome measures for monitoring primary care patients with depression: the PROMDEP cluster RCT and economic evaluation.监测初级保健抑郁症患者的患者报告结局测量:PROMDEP 聚类 RCT 和经济评价。
Health Technol Assess. 2024 Mar;28(17):1-95. doi: 10.3310/PLRQ4216.
4
The clinical effectiveness of sertraline in primary care and the role of depression severity and duration (PANDA): a pragmatic, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial.舍曲林在初级保健中的临床疗效以及抑郁严重程度和病程的作用(PANDA):一项实用、双盲、安慰剂对照随机试验。
Lancet Psychiatry. 2019 Nov;6(11):903-914. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30366-9. Epub 2019 Sep 19.
5
A comparison of nine scales to detect depression in Parkinson disease: which scale to use?九种量表比较用于帕金森病抑郁的检测:哪种量表更适用?
Neurology. 2012 Mar 27;78(13):998-1006. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e31824d587f. Epub 2012 Mar 14.
6
What is the best screening test for depression in chronic spinal pain patients?慢性脊柱疼痛患者抑郁症的最佳筛查测试是什么?
Spine J. 2014 Jul 1;14(7):1175-82. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.10.037. Epub 2013 Nov 10.
7
Reliability and validity of the Beck Depression Inventory-Fast Screen for medical patients in the general German population.贝克抑郁自评量表-快速筛查版在德国普通人群中用于医疗患者的信度和效度。
J Affect Disord. 2014 Mar;156:236-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2013.11.024. Epub 2013 Dec 17.
8
Comparing the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) depression measures in an integrated mood disorders practice.在综合心境障碍门诊中比较贝克抑郁自评量表 II (BDI-II)和患者健康问卷 9 项(PHQ-9)抑郁量表。
J Affect Disord. 2013 Mar 5;145(3):341-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2012.08.017. Epub 2012 Sep 25.
9
How much change is enough? Evidence from a longitudinal study on depression in UK primary care.变化多少才算足够?来自英国初级保健中抑郁纵向研究的证据。
Psychol Med. 2022 Jul;52(10):1875-1882. doi: 10.1017/S0033291720003700. Epub 2020 Nov 3.
10
A comparison of psychometric properties between internet and paper versions of two depression instruments (BDI-II and MADRS-S) administered to clinic patients.针对临床患者使用的两种抑郁量表(贝克抑郁量表第二版和蒙哥马利-艾森伯格抑郁量表简版)的网络版和纸质版心理测量特性的比较。
J Med Internet Res. 2010 Dec 19;12(5):e49. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1392.

引用本文的文献

1
Trajectories of Mental Distress and Resilience During the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Healthcare Workers.新冠疫情期间医护人员心理困扰与心理韧性的轨迹
Healthcare (Basel). 2025 Mar 6;13(5):574. doi: 10.3390/healthcare13050574.
2
The Safety of Digital Mental Health Interventions: Findings and Recommendations From a Qualitative Study Exploring Users' Experiences, Concerns, and Suggestions.数字心理健康干预措施的安全性:一项探索用户体验、担忧及建议的定性研究的结果与建议
JMIR Hum Factors. 2025 Feb 7;12:e62974. doi: 10.2196/62974.
3
Depressive symptoms and heart rate variability in perinatal women: A narrative review.围产期女性的抑郁症状与心率变异性:一篇叙述性综述。
Jpn J Nurs Sci. 2025 Jan;22(1):e12650. doi: 10.1111/jjns.12650.
4
An adaptive multi-graph neural network with multimodal feature fusion learning for MDD detection.一种具有多模态特征融合学习的自适应多图神经网络,用于 MDD 检测。
Sci Rep. 2024 Nov 18;14(1):28400. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-79981-0.
5
Digitally managing depression: A fully remote randomised attention-placebo controlled trial.数字方式管理抑郁症:一项完全远程的随机注意力安慰剂对照试验。
Digit Health. 2024 Jun 7;10:20552076241260409. doi: 10.1177/20552076241260409. eCollection 2024 Jan-Dec.
6
Variation in symptoms of common mental disorders in the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic: longitudinal cohort study.新冠疫情期间普通人群常见精神障碍症状的变化:纵向队列研究
BJPsych Open. 2024 Feb 12;10(2):e45. doi: 10.1192/bjo.2024.2.
7
Effectiveness of Schema Therapy versus Cognitive Behavioral Therapy versus Supportive Therapy for Depression in Inpatient and Day Clinic Settings: A Randomized Clinical Trial.住院和日间诊所环境中,图式治疗对比认知行为治疗对比支持性心理治疗对抑郁症的疗效:一项随机临床试验。
Psychother Psychosom. 2024;93(1):24-35. doi: 10.1159/000535492. Epub 2024 Jan 4.
8
Relationship between change in social evaluation learning and mood in early antidepressant treatment: A prospective cohort study in primary care.社会评价学习变化与早期抗抑郁治疗中情绪的关系:初级保健中的前瞻性队列研究。
J Psychopharmacol. 2023 Mar;37(3):303-312. doi: 10.1177/02698811221116928. Epub 2022 Aug 24.
9
Digital phenotyping in depression diagnostics: Integrating psychiatric and engineering perspectives.抑郁症诊断中的数字表型分析:整合精神病学与工程学视角
World J Psychiatry. 2022 Mar 19;12(3):393-409. doi: 10.5498/wjp.v12.i3.393.
10
Effective dose 50 method as the minimal clinically important difference: Evidence from depression trials.有效剂量 50 法作为最小临床重要差异:来自抑郁症试验的证据。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Sep;137:200-208. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.04.002. Epub 2021 Apr 20.

本文引用的文献

1
Personal recovery within positive psychiatry.积极精神病学中的个人康复
Nord J Psychiatry. 2018 Aug;72(6):420-430. doi: 10.1080/08039488.2018.1492015. Epub 2018 Nov 1.
2
Transparency about the outcomes of mental health services (IAPT approach): an analysis of public data.精神卫生服务结果的透明度(IAPT 方法):公共数据分析。
Lancet. 2018 Feb 17;391(10121):679-686. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32133-5. Epub 2017 Dec 7.
3
Why are there discrepancies between depressed patients' Global Rating of Change and scores on the Patient Health Questionnaire depression module? A qualitative study of primary care in England.为何抑郁症患者的总体变化评定与患者健康问卷抑郁模块得分之间存在差异?一项针对英国初级医疗的定性研究。
BMJ Open. 2017 May 4;7(4):e014519. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014519.
4
Principal component analysis: a review and recent developments.主成分分析:综述与最新进展
Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2016 Apr 13;374(2065):20150202. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2015.0202.
5
Usefulness of PHQ-9 in primary care to determine meaningful symptoms of low mood: a qualitative study.PHQ-9在初级保健中用于确定情绪低落有意义症状的效用:一项定性研究。
Br J Gen Pract. 2016 Feb;66(643):e78-84. doi: 10.3399/bjgp16X683473.
6
Screening and case finding for major depressive disorder using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9): a meta-analysis.使用患者健康问卷(PHQ-9)筛查和发现重度抑郁症:一项荟萃分析。
Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2015 Nov-Dec;37(6):567-76. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2015.06.012. Epub 2015 Jun 18.
7
Minimal clinically important difference on the Beck Depression Inventory--II according to the patient's perspective.从患者角度看贝克抑郁量表第二版的最小临床重要差异
Psychol Med. 2015 Nov;45(15):3269-79. doi: 10.1017/S0033291715001270. Epub 2015 Jul 13.
8
Does depression screening improve depression outcomes in primary care?在初级保健中,抑郁症筛查能否改善抑郁症的治疗效果?
BMJ. 2014 Feb 4;348:g1253. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g1253.
9
Depression management in primary care: an observational study of management changes related to PHQ-9 score for depression monitoring.基层医疗中的抑郁管理:一项观察性研究,旨在探讨 PHQ-9 评分与抑郁监测管理变化的关系。
Br J Gen Pract. 2012 Jun;62(599):e451-7. doi: 10.3399/bjgp12X649151.
10
The QOF, NICE, and depression: a clumsy mechanism that undermines clinical judgment.质量与结果框架、英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所与抑郁症:一种破坏临床判断的笨拙机制。
Br J Gen Pract. 2011 Jul;61(588):432-3. doi: 10.3399/bjgp11X582994.