Current use of depression rating scales in mental health setting

• Published in: Psychiatry investigation 2010, 7(3), , pp.170-176
• Main Authors: Lee, Eun Jeong, Kim, Jung Bum, Shin, Im Hee, Lim, Kyung Hee, Lee, Sang Hee, Cho, Gyung Ah, Sung, Hyung Mo, Jung, Sung Won, Zmimmerman, Mark, Lee, Yanghyun
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Original; 정신과학
• ISSN: 1738-3684; 1976-3026
• DOI: 10.4306/pi.2010.7.3.170

This study was to investigate the current use of depression rating scales by psychiatrists and clinical psychologists in Korea. The questionnaires from many psychiatrists and clinical psychologists were included in the analysis. The questionnaire was composed of items about examining the percentage of patients clinically using depression rating scales, reasons for not use of them, the degree of satisfaction, the perceived agreement rate between the result of depression rating scales and doctor's clinical interview in the evaluation of patients with depressive symptoms. Data were analyzed by χ(2) and independent t-test. The clinical use of depression rating scales was more frequent in the psychologists than in the psychiatrists. The purposes for using depression rating scales were assessed into six areas, there was no significant difference in between two groups, and both groups pointed out their purpose as rating of severity and screening. The reasons for not using scales were that their interview may be sufficient for diagnosis and assessment of depressive patients and they are not familiar with the use of depression rating scales. The psychiatrists usually prefer the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and Symptom Checklist 90-Revision (SCL-90-R) in order of frequency, and the clinical psychologists are more likely to use the BDI, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and SCL-90-R. Overall rate of satisfaction in the use of the scales was 67.29±14.45% and overall perceived agreement rate was 70.89±16.45%. Currently used depression rating scales at the clinical practice were not various. Therefore, to heighten clinicians' utility of these depression rating scales measures, either educational efforts or advertisements, or both, will be necessary to spread them wildly.