• Title of article

    A clinical predictive score for mood disorder risk in low-income primary care settings

  • Author/Authors

    Vِhringer، نويسنده , , P.A. and Jiménez، نويسنده , , M.I. and Igor، نويسنده , , M.A. and Forés، نويسنده , , G.A. and Correa، نويسنده , , M.O. and Sullivan، نويسنده , , M.C. and Holtzman، نويسنده , , N.S. and Whitham، نويسنده , , E.A. and Barroilhet، نويسنده , , S.A. and Alvear، نويسنده , , K. and Logvinenko، نويسنده , , T. F. Kent، نويسنده , , D.M. and Ghaemi، نويسنده , , S.N.، نويسنده ,

  • Issue Information
    روزنامه با شماره پیاپی سال 2013
  • Pages
    7
  • From page
    1125
  • To page
    1131
  • Abstract
    AbstractBackground e availability of validated screening tests for mood disorders, busy general practitioners (GPs) often lack the time to use them routinely. This study aimed to develop a simplified clinical predictive score to help screen for presence of current mood disorder in low-income primary care settings. s ross-sectional study, 197 patients seen at 10 primary care centers in Santiago, Chile completed self-administered screening tools for mood disorders: the Patient Health questionnaire (PHQ-9) and the Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ). To determine participants’ current-point mood disorder status, trained clinicians applied a gold-standard diagnostic interview (SCID-I). A simplified clinical predictive model (CM) was developed based on clinical features and selected questions from the screening tools. Using CM, a clinical predictive score (PS) was developed. Full PHQ-9 and GP assessment were compared with PS. s multivariate logistic regression, clinical and demographic variables predictive of current mood disorder were identified for a simplified 8-point predictive score (PS). PS had better discrimination than GP assessment (auROC-statistic=0.80 [95% CI 0.72, 0.85] vs. 0.58 [95% CI 0.52, 0.62] p-value <0.0001), but not as good as the full PHQ-9 (0.89 [95% CI 0.85, 0.93], p-value=0.03). Compared with GP assessment, PS increased sensitivity by 50% at a fixed specificity of 90%. Administered in a typical primary care clinical population, it correctly predicted almost 80% of cases. tions r research must verify external validity of the PS. sion ily administered clinical predictive score determined, with reasonable accuracy, the current risk of mood disorders in low-income primary care settings.
  • Keywords
    diagnosis , Screening , Primary Health Care , bipolar disorder , depression , Mood Disorders
  • Journal title
    Journal of Affective Disorders
  • Serial Year
    2013
  • Journal title
    Journal of Affective Disorders
  • Record number

    1434371