OBJECTIVE: Clinical diagnosis has been shown to be unreliable compared to structured diagnostic schedules. However, clinicians rarely use structured diagnostic schedules due to concerns about the feasibility in clinical practice and about patient acceptance. Mini International Neuropsychiatric Schedule is a short diagnostic instrument validated against SCID and CIDI but its feasibility and patient acceptance has not been studied. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: One hundred and eleven patients admitted to a partial program were administered Mini International Neuropsychiatric Schedule and the interview was timed. A short questionnaire was administered to assess patients' views about the interview. For a subgroup of patients, diagnoses by both open interviews and Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) were available. These were compared to look for agreement in primary diagnoses and co-morbid conditions. RESULTS: MINI took an average of 16.4 min to administer. Patients' views of MINI were positive. It was considered comprehensive enough to cover all patient symptoms and at the same time not unduly lengthy. Patients were not bothered by the interview format. There was disagreement between MINI primary diagnosis and open diagnosis in 42% cases. In 33% the disagreement was of substantial clinical significance. MINI diagnosed more co-morbid conditions (average 2.05 compared to 0.5 in open interview). CONCLUSIONS: MINI is a short diagnostic interview schedule that can be easily incorporated into routine clinical interviews. It has good acceptance by patients.
OBJECTIVE: Clinical diagnosis has been shown to be unreliable compared to structured diagnostic schedules. However, clinicians rarely use structured diagnostic schedules due to concerns about the feasibility in clinical practice and about patient acceptance. Mini International Neuropsychiatric Schedule is a short diagnostic instrument validated against SCID and CIDI but its feasibility and patient acceptance has not been studied. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: One hundred and eleven patients admitted to a partial program were administered Mini International Neuropsychiatric Schedule and the interview was timed. A short questionnaire was administered to assess patients' views about the interview. For a subgroup of patients, diagnoses by both open interviews and Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) were available. These were compared to look for agreement in primary diagnoses and co-morbid conditions. RESULTS: MINI took an average of 16.4 min to administer. Patients' views of MINI were positive. It was considered comprehensive enough to cover all patient symptoms and at the same time not unduly lengthy. Patients were not bothered by the interview format. There was disagreement between MINI primary diagnosis and open diagnosis in 42% cases. In 33% the disagreement was of substantial clinical significance. MINI diagnosed more co-morbid conditions (average 2.05 compared to 0.5 in open interview). CONCLUSIONS: MINI is a short diagnostic interview schedule that can be easily incorporated into routine clinical interviews. It has good acceptance by patients.
Authors: Murielle Neuschwander; Tina In-Albon; Andrea H Meyer; Silvia Schneider Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2017-07-21 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Tina Matuschek; Sonia Jaeger; Stephanie Stadelmann; Katrin Dölling; Steffi Weis; Kai Von Klitzing; Madlen Grunewald; Andreas Hiemisch; Mirko Döhnert Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2015-06-23 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Victoria N Mutiso; Christine W Musyimi; Tahilia J Rebello; Isaiah Gitonga; Albert Tele; Kathleen M Pike; David M Ndetei Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 2018-07-30 Impact factor: 4.328
Authors: Alberto J Espay; Thomas Maloney; Jennifer Vannest; Matthew M Norris; James C Eliassen; Erin Neefus; Jane B Allendorfer; Robert Chen; Jerzy P Szaflarski Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2017-11-10 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Bradley N Gaynes; Joanne DeVeaugh-Geiss; Sam Weir; Hongbin Gu; Cora MacPherson; Herbert C Schulberg; Larry Culpepper; David R Rubinow Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2010 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Jeff C Huffman; Julia K Boehm; Scott R Beach; Eleanor E Beale; Christina M DuBois; Brian C Healy Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2016-03-07 Impact factor: 4.791
Authors: Marjon Nadort; Arnoud Arntz; Johannes H Smit; Josephine Giesen-Bloo; Merijn Eikelenboom; Philip Spinhoven; Thea van Asselt; Michel Wensing; Richard van Dyck Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2009-10-06 Impact factor: 3.630