Loading…

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

Abstract Background Despite 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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of affective disorders 2013-12, Vol.151 (3), p.1125-1131
Main Authors: Vöhringer, P.A, Jimenez, M.I, Igor, M.A, Forés, G.A, Correa, M.O, Sullivan, M.C, Holtzman, N.S, Whitham, E.A, Barroilhet, S.A, Alvear, K, Logvinenko, T, Kent, D.M, Ghaemi, S.N
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract Background Despite 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. Methods In a cross-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. Results Using 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
ISSN:0165-0327
1573-2517
DOI:10.1016/j.jad.2013.06.056