BACKGROUND: Screening of patients for common mental disorders (CMDs) is needed in primary-care management programmes. This study aimed to compare the screening properties of five widely used questionnaires. METHOD: Adult attenders in five primary-care settings in India were recruited through systematic sampling. Four questionnaires were administered, in pairs, in random order to participants: the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ, 12 items); the Primary Health Questionnaire (PHQ, nine items); the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10, 10 items), and from which we could extract the score of the shorter 6-item K6; and the Self-Reporting Questionnaire (SRQ, 20 items). All participants were interviewed with a structured lay diagnostic interview, the Revised Clinical Interview Schedule (CIS-R). RESULTS: Complete data were available for 598 participants (participation rate 99.3%). All five questionnaires showed moderate to high discriminating ability; the GHQ and SRQ showed the best results. All five showed moderate to high degrees of correlation with one another, the poorest being between the two shortest questionnaires, K6 and PHQ. All five had relatively good internal consistency. However, the positive predictive value (PPV) of the questionnaires compared with the diagnostic interview ranged from 51% to 77% at the optimal cut-off scores. CONCLUSIONS: There is little difference in the ability of these questionnaires to identify cases accurately, but none showed high PPVs without a considerable compromise on sensitivity. Hence, the choice of an optimum cut-off score that yields the best balance between sensitivity and PPV may need to be tailored to individual settings, with a higher cut-off being recommended in resource-limited primary-care settings.
BACKGROUND: Screening of patients for common mental disorders (CMDs) is needed in primary-care management programmes. This study aimed to compare the screening properties of five widely used questionnaires. METHOD: Adult attenders in five primary-care settings in India were recruited through systematic sampling. Four questionnaires were administered, in pairs, in random order to participants: the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ, 12 items); the Primary Health Questionnaire (PHQ, nine items); the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10, 10 items), and from which we could extract the score of the shorter 6-item K6; and the Self-Reporting Questionnaire (SRQ, 20 items). All participants were interviewed with a structured lay diagnostic interview, the Revised Clinical Interview Schedule (CIS-R). RESULTS: Complete data were available for 598 participants (participation rate 99.3%). All five questionnaires showed moderate to high discriminating ability; the GHQ and SRQ showed the best results. All five showed moderate to high degrees of correlation with one another, the poorest being between the two shortest questionnaires, K6 and PHQ. All five had relatively good internal consistency. However, the positive predictive value (PPV) of the questionnaires compared with the diagnostic interview ranged from 51% to 77% at the optimal cut-off scores. CONCLUSIONS: There is little difference in the ability of these questionnaires to identify cases accurately, but none showed high PPVs without a considerable compromise on sensitivity. Hence, the choice of an optimum cut-off score that yields the best balance between sensitivity and PPV may need to be tailored to individual settings, with a higher cut-off being recommended in resource-limited primary-care settings.
Authors: Cecilia Tomori; Allison M McFall; Aylur K Srikrishnan; Shruti H Mehta; Sunil S Solomon; Santhanam Anand; Canjeevaram K Vasudevan; Suniti Solomon; David D Celentano Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2016-02
Authors: Aravind Pillai; Madhabika B Nayak; Thomas K Greenfield; Jason C Bond; Deborah S Hasin; Vikram Patel Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2014-08-05 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Tessa Concepcion; Clarita Barbosa; Juan Carlos Vélez; Micah Pepper; Asterio Andrade; Bizu Gelaye; David Yanez; Michelle A Williams Journal: J Am Coll Health Date: 2014
Authors: Christine Buttorff; Rebecca S Hock; Helen A Weiss; Smita Naik; Ricardo Araya; Betty R Kirkwood; Daniel Chisholm; Vikram Patel Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2012-09-14 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Claire van der Westhuizen; Gail Wyatt; John K Williams; Dan J Stein; Katherine Sorsdahl Journal: Int J Ment Health Addict Date: 2015-06-30 Impact factor: 3.836
Authors: Robert C Stewart; James Bunn; Maclean Vokhiwa; Eric Umar; Felix Kauye; Margaret Fitzgerald; Barbara Tomenson; Atif Rahman; Francis Creed Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 2009-07-17 Impact factor: 4.328
Authors: Maryam Shahmanesh; Sonali Wayal; Frances Cowan; David Mabey; Andrew Copas; Vikram Patel Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2009-05-14 Impact factor: 9.308