Goldberg D, Bridges K
J R Coll Gen Pract. 1987 Jan;37(294):15-8.
This study compares the characteristics of general practitioners and a pen and paper test in the detection of psychiatric disorder in primary care settings. A psychiatrist interviewed a stratified sample of 283 patients drawn from 590 consecutive new illnesses seen in 15 general practices. Research diagnoses could be made in between one-quarter and one-third of the consecutive new illnesses. Two different research diagnostic systems agreed quite well with one another about who should be regarded as a psychiatric 'case' - although agreement between them for individual diagnoses was less impressive. Research diagnoses of psychiatric illnesses could be made in approximately 30% of new episodes of illnesses seen. If the DSM-3 system was used as a criterion of 'caseness', the specificity of the general health questionnaire was 75.4%, and the sensitivity was 87.1%. The general practitioners had fewer false positives than the questionnaire, but they were much more likely to miss psychiatric cases. Use of the general health questionnaire could increase their sensitivity from about 50% to 95%.
本研究比较了全科医生和纸笔测试在基层医疗环境中检测精神障碍的特征。一位精神科医生对从15家全科诊所连续诊治的590例新发病例中抽取的283例患者进行了分层抽样访谈。在连续的新发病例中,有四分之一到三分之一能够做出研究诊断。两种不同的研究诊断系统在谁应被视为精神科“病例”方面彼此相当一致——尽管它们在个体诊断上的一致性不太显著。在所诊治的新发病例中,约30%能够做出精神疾病的研究诊断。如果将DSM-3系统用作“病例”标准,一般健康问卷的特异性为75.4%,敏感性为87.1%。全科医生的假阳性比问卷少,但他们漏诊精神科病例的可能性要大得多。使用一般健康问卷可将他们的敏感性从约50%提高到95%。