OBJECTIVE: Depressive disorders are among the most common medical disorders seen in primary care practice. The Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression (CES-D) scale is one of the measures commonly suggested for detecting depression in these clinics. However, to our knowledge, there have been no previous studies examining the validity of the CES-D among low-income women attending primary care clinics. METHOD: Low-income women attending public primary care clinics (n = 179, ages 20-77) completed the CES-D and the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for the DSM-IV (DIS-IV). RESULTS: The results supported the validity of the CES-D. The standard cut-score of 16 and above yielded a sensitivity of .95 and specificity of .70 in predicting Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). However, over two-thirds of those who screened positive did not meet criteria for MDD (positive predictive value = .28). The standard cut-score appears valid, but inefficient for depression screening in this population. An elevated cut-score of 34 yielded a higher specificity (.95) and over 50 percent of the patients who screened positive had a MDD (positive predictive value = .53), but at great cost to sensitivity (.45). CONCLUSION: Results indicated that the CES-D appears to be as valid for low-income, minority women as for any other demographic group examined in the literature. Despite similar validity, the CES-D appears to be inadequate for routine screening in this population. The positive predictive value remains very low no matter which cut-scores are used. The costs of the false positive rates could be prohibitive, especially in similar public primary care settings.
OBJECTIVE:Depressive disorders are among the most common medical disorders seen in primary care practice. The Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression (CES-D) scale is one of the measures commonly suggested for detecting depression in these clinics. However, to our knowledge, there have been no previous studies examining the validity of the CES-D among low-income women attending primary care clinics. METHOD: Low-income women attending public primary care clinics (n = 179, ages 20-77) completed the CES-D and the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for the DSM-IV (DIS-IV). RESULTS: The results supported the validity of the CES-D. The standard cut-score of 16 and above yielded a sensitivity of .95 and specificity of .70 in predicting Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). However, over two-thirds of those who screened positive did not meet criteria for MDD (positive predictive value = .28). The standard cut-score appears valid, but inefficient for depression screening in this population. An elevated cut-score of 34 yielded a higher specificity (.95) and over 50 percent of the patients who screened positive had a MDD (positive predictive value = .53), but at great cost to sensitivity (.45). CONCLUSION: Results indicated that the CES-D appears to be as valid for low-income, minority women as for any other demographic group examined in the literature. Despite similar validity, the CES-D appears to be inadequate for routine screening in this population. The positive predictive value remains very low no matter which cut-scores are used. The costs of the false positive rates could be prohibitive, especially in similar public primary care settings.
Authors: Tianshi David Wu; Michelle N Eakin; Cynthia S Rand; Emily P Brigham; Gregory B Diette; Nadia N Hansel; Meredith C McCormack Journal: J Public Health Manag Pract Date: 2019 Mar/Apr
Authors: Tracey E Wilson; Emma Sophia Kay; Bulent Turan; Mallory O Johnson; Mirjam-Colette Kempf; Janet M Turan; Mardge H Cohen; Adaora A Adimora; Margaret Pereyra; Elizabeth T Golub; Lakshmi Goparaju; Lynn Murchison; Gina M Wingood; Lisa R Metsch Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Maria R Khan; Jay S Kaufman; Brian Wells Pence; Bradley N Gaynes; Adaora A Adimora; Sharon S Weir; William C Miller Journal: Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med Date: 2009-07
Authors: Anna Junkins; Andres Azuero; Corilyn Ott; Christina Jagielski; Karen Cropsey; Robert Savage; Christina Psaros; Steven Safren; Mirjam-Colette Kempf Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2019-07-16 Impact factor: 5.078
Authors: Larry Nuttbrock; Walter Bockting; Andrew Rosenblum; Sel Hwahng; Mona Mason; Monica Macri; Jeffrey Becker Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2014-09-11 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Chandra Y Osborn; Hollister W Trott; Maciej S Buchowski; Kushal A Patel; Leslie D Kirby; Margaret K Hargreaves; William J Blot; Sarah S Cohen; David G Schlundt Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2010-02-25 Impact factor: 19.112