Patten Scott B
Mathison Centre for Mental Health Research & Education, Hotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary, 4th Floor, Cal Wenzel Precision Health Building, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB T2N4Z6, Canada.
J Clin Med. 2025 Jan 27;14(3):844. doi: 10.3390/jcm14030844.
Depressive disorders are diagnosed using categorical definitions provided by DSM-5 and ICD-11. However, categorization for diagnostic purposes fails to account for the inherently dimensional nature of depression. Artificial categorization may impede research and obstruct the achievement of optimal treatment outcomes. The current study utilized a Canadian historical dataset called the National Population Health Survey (NPHS) to explore a simple alternative approach that does not depend on categorization. The NPHS collected complete data from 5029 participants through biannual interviews conducted in 1994-2010. Data collection included the K6 Distress Scale as well as the Composite International Diagnostic Interview Short Form for Major Depression. Data from the National Population Health Survey (NPHS) were used to quantify vulnerability to depressive symptoms through longitudinal K6 Distress Scale assessments. Variability of symptoms across this dimension of apparent vulnerability was quantified using ordinal regression, adjusting for age and sex. Predicted probabilities from these models were used in simulations to produce a visualization of the epidemiology and to explore clinical implications. Consideration of these two dimensional factors (estimated overall level of vulnerability to depression and variability over time) is already a component of clinical assessment and is also accessible to repeated measurement in settings adopting measurement-based care. More formal consideration of these elements may provide a complementary approach to categorical diagnostic assessment and an opportunity for greater personalization of care and improved clinical outcomes. Future studies should validate these findings in diverse clinical settings to ensure their applicability in real-world contexts.
抑郁症的诊断是依据《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版(DSM - 5)和《国际疾病分类》第11版(ICD - 11)提供的分类定义进行的。然而,出于诊断目的的分类未能考虑到抑郁症本质上的维度性质。人为分类可能会阻碍研究,并妨碍实现最佳治疗效果。本研究利用了一个名为加拿大国民健康调查(NPHS)的历史数据集,以探索一种不依赖分类的简单替代方法。NPHS通过在1994 - 2010年进行的半年一次访谈,收集了5029名参与者的完整数据。数据收集包括K6苦恼量表以及用于重度抑郁症的综合国际诊断访谈简表。来自加拿大国民健康调查(NPHS)的数据通过纵向K6苦恼量表评估来量化抑郁症状的易感性。使用有序回归对这一明显易感性维度上症状的变异性进行量化,并对年龄和性别进行调整。这些模型的预测概率用于模拟,以呈现流行病学的可视化并探索临床意义。考虑这两个维度因素(估计的抑郁症总体易感性水平和随时间的变异性)已经是临床评估的一个组成部分,并且在采用基于测量的护理的环境中也可进行重复测量。对这些因素进行更正式的考虑可能为分类诊断评估提供一种补充方法,并为实现更个性化的护理和改善临床结果提供机会。未来的研究应在不同的临床环境中验证这些发现,以确保它们在现实世界中的适用性。