OBJECTIVE: To determine if screening in general practice and related medical settings improves management and clinical outcomes in people with depression. DATA SOURCES: The Medline (1966-2002), EMBASE (1980-2002) and PsycINFO (1966-2002) databases were searched. These were supplemented by searching the Cochrane databases (to 2002); performing additional specific searches on Medline, EMBASE and PsycINFO; scrutinising reference lists of selected articles; and querying experts. STUDY SELECTION: Inclusion criteria were: review of prospective studies with a primary focus of depression screening in general practice settings; review of studies of healthy populations or people with known depression; publication in a peer-reviewed journal; and written in English. Eleven reviews that satisfied these criteria were assessed for quality using the Oxman and Guyatt Index. Four reviews met the criterion of a score of five or more. DATA EXTRACTION: One author tabulated relevant material (including number and type of studies, outcomes/endpoints, measures of association/statistical results, and findings) from the four key reviews. A second author independently checked the accuracy of this extracted material. DATA SYNTHESIS: Brief self-report instruments have acceptable psychometric properties and are practical for use in general practice settings. Screening increases the recognition and diagnosis of depression and, when integrated with a commitment to provide coordinated and prompt follow-up of diagnosis and treatment, clinical outcomes are improved. CONCLUSIONS: Although controversial, the evidence is now in favour of the appropriate use of screening tools in primary care.
OBJECTIVE: To determine if screening in general practice and related medical settings improves management and clinical outcomes in people with depression. DATA SOURCES: The Medline (1966-2002), EMBASE (1980-2002) and PsycINFO (1966-2002) databases were searched. These were supplemented by searching the Cochrane databases (to 2002); performing additional specific searches on Medline, EMBASE and PsycINFO; scrutinising reference lists of selected articles; and querying experts. STUDY SELECTION: Inclusion criteria were: review of prospective studies with a primary focus of depression screening in general practice settings; review of studies of healthy populations or people with known depression; publication in a peer-reviewed journal; and written in English. Eleven reviews that satisfied these criteria were assessed for quality using the Oxman and Guyatt Index. Four reviews met the criterion of a score of five or more. DATA EXTRACTION: One author tabulated relevant material (including number and type of studies, outcomes/endpoints, measures of association/statistical results, and findings) from the four key reviews. A second author independently checked the accuracy of this extracted material. DATA SYNTHESIS: Brief self-report instruments have acceptable psychometric properties and are practical for use in general practice settings. Screening increases the recognition and diagnosis of depression and, when integrated with a commitment to provide coordinated and prompt follow-up of diagnosis and treatment, clinical outcomes are improved. CONCLUSIONS: Although controversial, the evidence is now in favour of the appropriate use of screening tools in primary care.
Authors: Limin Mao; Susan C Kippax; Christy E Newman; Gavin Andrews; Gary Rogers; Deborah C Saltman; Michael R Kidd Journal: Ment Health Fam Med Date: 2008-06
Authors: L M Stepleman; L M Penwell-Waines; M Rollock; R S Casillas; T Brands; J Campbell; B Ange; J L Waller Journal: J Clin Psychol Med Settings Date: 2014-12
Authors: Sophie C Reid; Sylvia D Kauer; Stephen J C Hearps; Alexander H D Crooke; Angela S Khor; Lena A Sanci; George C Patton Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2013-06-19 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Richard Taylor; Andrew Page; Alex Wodak; Michael Dudley; Sonali Munot; Stephen Morrell Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2018-08-03 Impact factor: 3.295