Dataset Information

Routinely administered questionnaires for depression and anxiety: systematic review.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To examine the effect of routinely administered psychiatric questionnaires on the recognition, management, and outcome of psychiatric disorders in non-psychiatric settings. DATA SOURCES:Embase, Medline, PsycLIT, Cinahl, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and hand searches of key journals. METHODS:A systematic review of randomised controlled trials of the administration and routine feedback of psychiatric screening and outcome questionnaires to clinicians in non-psychiatric settings. Narrative overview of key design features and end points, together with a random effects quantitative synthesis of comparable studies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Recognition of psychiatric disorders after feedback of questionnaire results; interventions for psychiatric disorders; and outcome of psychiatric disorders. RESULTS:Nine randomised studies were identified that examined the use of common psychiatric instruments in primary care and general hospital settings. Studies compared the effect of the administration of these instruments followed by the feedback of the results to clinicians, with administration with no feedback. Meta-analytic pooling was possible for four of these studies (2457 participants), which measured the effect of feedback on the recognition of depressive disorders. Routine administration and feedback of scores for all patients (irrespective of score) did not increase the overall rate of recognition of mental disorders such as anxiety and depression (relative risk of detection of depression by clinician after feedback 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.09). Two studies showed that routine administration followed by selective feedback for only high scorers increased the rate of recognition of depression (relative risk of detection of depression after feedback 2.64, 1.62 to 4.31). This increased recognition, however, did not translate into an increased rate of intervention. Overall, studies of routine administration of psychiatric measures did not show an effect on patient outcome. CONCLUSIONS:The routine measurement of outcome is a costly exercise. Little evidence shows that it is of benefit in improving psychosocial outcomes of those with psychiatric disorder managed in non-psychiatric settings.

SUBMITTER: Gilbody SM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC26571 | biostudies-literature | 2001 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Routinely administered questionnaires for depression and anxiety: systematic review.

Gilbody S M SM House A O AO Sheldon T A TA

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20010201 7283

<h4>Objectives</h4>To examine the effect of routinely administered psychiatric questionnaires on the recognition, management, and outcome of psychiatric disorders in non-psychiatric settings.<h4>Data sources</h4>Embase, Medline, PsycLIT, Cinahl, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and hand searches of key journals.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic review of randomised controlled trials of the administration and routine feedback of psychiatric screening and outcome questionnaires to clinicians in non ...[more]

PMID: 11179161

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Comorbid depression is common among patients with diabetes and has severe health consequences, but often remains unrecognized. Several questionnaires are used to screen for depression. A systematic review and meta-analysis regarding the diagnostic accuracy of depression questionnaires in adults with diabetes is unavailable. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of depression questionnaires in adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. METHODS:PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO were searched from inception to 28 February 2018. Studies were included when the diagnostic accuracy of depression questionnaires was assessed in a diabetes population and the reference standard was a clinical interview. Data extraction was performed by one reviewer and checked by another. Two reviewers independently conducted the quality assessment (QUADAS-2). Diagnostic accuracy was pooled in bivariate random effects models. The main outcome was diagnostic accuracy, expressed as sensitivity and specificity, of depression questionnaires in an adult diabetes population. This study is reported according to PRISMA-DTA and is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018092950). RESULTS:A total 6,097 peer-reviewed articles were screened. Twenty-one studies (N = 5,703 patients) met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Twelve different depression questionnaires were identified, of which the CES-D (n = 6 studies) and PHQ-9 (n = 7 studies) were the most frequently evaluated. Risk of bias was unclear for multiple domains in the majority of studies. In the meta-analyses, five (N = 1,228) studies of the CES-D (?16), five (N = 1,642) of the PHQ-9 (?10) and four (N = 822) of the algorithm of the PHQ-9 were included in the pooled analysis. The CES-D (?16) had a pooled sensitivity of 85.0% (95%CI, 71.3-92.8%) and a specificity of 71.6% (95%CI, 62.5-79.2%); the PHQ-9 (?10) had a sensitivity of 81.5% (95%CI, 57.1-93.5%) and a specificity of 79.7% (95%CI, 62.1-90.4%). The algorithm for the PHQ-9 had a sensitivity of 60.9% (95%CI, 52.3-90.8%) and a specificity of 64.0% (95%CI, 53.0-93.9%). CONCLUSIONS:This review indicates that the CES-D had the highest sensitivity, whereas the PHQ-9 had the highest specificity, although confidence intervals were wide and overlapping. The algorithm for the PHQ-9 had the lowest sensitivity and specificity. Given the variance in results and suboptimal reporting of studies, further high quality studies are needed to confirm the diagnostic accuracy of these depression questionnaires in patients with diabetes.

Project description:BackgroundPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are valuable tools in assessing the quality of health care from a patient perspective and are increasingly used by otologists. However, selecting the right questionnaire has proven to be a difficult and time-consuming task. To facilitate this process, we will provide a comprehensive overview of existing questionnaires.MethodsA systematic literature search has been conducted on August 26, 2019, using the EMBASE and PubMed medical databases. 13,345 unique records were extracted. Questionnaires addressing any otologic complaint (tinnitus, hearing loss, earache, otorrhoea, and ear-related pressure sensation, vertigo, itch, or dysgeusia) were identified. All questionnaires were evaluated for eligibility by two independent researchers. Inclusion criteria were adult population, closed-ended questions, English language of the questionnaire, and the availability of the original article describing the development of the instrument or a validation paper describing the validation process written in English.ObjectiveCreate a comprehensive overview of all validated closed-ended otology questionnaires for adults and demonstrate their basic characteristics.Main outcome measureThe number of questionnaires in English literature for the adult population, subdivided per symptom and target population.ResultsA total of 155 unique questionnaires were selected: 33 tinnitus questionnaires, 23 vertigo questionnaires, 84 hearing loss questionnaires, and 15 multiple complaint questionnaires. A protocol for further questionnaire comparison is presented.DiscussionTwo separate sequential searches were needed to identify unique questionnaires and to identify their development/validation paper. Although many ear diseases create multiple symptoms, the majority of the questionnaires were symptom specific.ConclusionMany questionnaires concerning ear-related symptoms exist and predominantly concern hearing loss, vertigo, or tinnitus. Only a few questionnaires cover the multiple complaints that ear diseases can create. The presented overview is the most comprehensive overview of otology questionnaires in literature to date. It will serve as a basis for questionnaire selection by professionals and could serve as a protocol for questionnaire selection in other fields.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42017058155.

Project description:IntroductionDepression and anxiety are common among people with rosacea. However, the exact magnitude of the prevalence rate and odds ratios (ORs) for depression and anxiety, respectively, in rosacea patients is unclear, and no systematic review or meta-analysis of published data has yet been performed. We therefore performed as systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the prevalence rates and ORs for depression and anxiety in rosacea patients.MethodsWe performed a systematic search of the PubMed, Embase and Medline databases for all observational studies published up to October 2020 that reported the prevalence rates and ORs for depression and anxiety in patients with rosacea. The primary outcome measures were prevalence rates and ORs for depression and anxiety in patients with rosacea. Heterogeneity across studies was assessed with the I2 statistic. Sources of heterogeneity were explored through subgroup and meta-regression analyses.ResultsA total of 14 studies involving 14,134,021 patients with rosacea were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of depression was 19.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 15.0-24.3%) and that of anxiety was 15.6% (95% CI 11.8-19.3%). The prevalence of depression and anxiety was significantly lower in studies using clinical criteria to diagnose depression and anxiety (9.2 and 10.2%, respectively) than in those studies using screening tools (26.2% [P < 0.01] and 22.7% [P = 0.03], respectively). The methodological quality of the included studies greatly contributed to the heterogeneity. Patients with rosacea were more likely to experience depression (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.79-2.72) and anxiety (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.56-3.44) than healthy controls.ConclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis indicates that patients with rosacea are at a higher risk of experiencing depression and anxiety. More efforts are warranted to recognize and manage depression and anxiety in patients with rosacea.

Project description:BackgroundMany studies report a positive association between smoking and mental illness. However, the literature remains mixed regarding the direction of this association. We therefore conducted a systematic review evaluating the association of smoking and depression and/or anxiety in longitudinal studies.MethodsStudies were identified by searching PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science and were included if they: (1) used human participants, (2) were longitudinal, (3) reported primary data, (4) had smoking as an exposure and depression and/or anxiety as an outcome, or (5) had depression and/or anxiety as the exposure and smoking as an outcome.ResultsOutcomes from 148 studies were categorized into: smoking onset, smoking status, smoking heaviness, tobacco dependence, and smoking trajectory. The results for each category varied substantially, with evidence for positive associations in both directions (smoking to later mental health and mental health to later smoking) as well as null findings. Overall, nearly half the studies reported that baseline depression/anxiety was associated with some type of later smoking behavior, while over a third found evidence that a smoking exposure was associated with later depression/anxiety. However, there were few studies directly supporting a bidirectional model of smoking and anxiety, and very few studies reporting null results.ConclusionsThe literature on the prospective association between smoking and depression and anxiety is inconsistent in terms of the direction of association most strongly supported. This suggests the need for future studies that employ different methodologies, such as Mendelian randomization (MR), which will allow us to draw stronger causal inferences.ImplicationsWe systematically reviewed longitudinal studies on the association of different aspects of smoking behavior with depression and anxiety. The results varied considerably, with evidence for smoking both associated with subsequent depression and anxiety, and vice versa. Few studies supported a bidirectional relationship, or reported null results, and no clear patterns by gender, ethnicity, clinical status, length to follow-up, or diagnostic test. Suggesting that despite advantages of longitudinal studies, they cannot alone provide strong evidence of causality. Therefore, future studies investigating this association should employ different methods allowing for stronger causal inferences to be made, such as MR.

Project description:Background: Burnout is a psychological syndrome characterized by emotional exhaustion, feelings of cynicism and reduced personal accomplishment. In the past years there has been disagreement on whether burnout and depression are the same or different constructs, as they appear to share some common features (e.g., loss of interest and impaired concentration). However, the results so far are inconclusive and researchers disagree with regard to the degree to which we should expect such overlap. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to examine the relationship between burnout and depression. Additionally, given that burnout is the result of chronic stress and that working environments can often trigger anxious reactions, we also investigated the relationship between burnout and anxiety. Method: We searched the online databases SCOPUS, Web of Science, MEDLINE (PubMed), and Google Scholar for studies examining the relationship between burnout and depression and burnout and anxiety, which were published between January 2007 and August 2018. Inclusion criteria were used for all studies and included both cross-sectional and longitudinal designs, published and unpublished research articles, full-text articles, articles written in the English language, studies that present the effects sizes of their findings and that used reliable research tools. Results: Our results showed a significant association between burnout and depression (r = 0.520, SE = 0.012, 95% CI = 0.492, 0.547) and burnout and anxiety (r = 0.460, SE = 0.014, 95% CI = 0.421, 0.497). However, moderation analysis for both burnout-depression and burnout-anxiety relationships revealed that the studies in which either the MBI test was used or were rated as having better quality showed lower effect sizes. Conclusions: Our research aims to clarify the relationship between burnout-depression and burnout-anxiety relationships. Our findings revealed no conclusive overlap between burnout and depression and burnout and anxiety, indicating that they are different and robust constructs. Future studies should focus on utilizing more longitudinal designs in order to assess the causal relationships between these variables.

Dataset Information

Routinely administered questionnaires for depression and anxiety: systematic review.

Publications

Routinely administered questionnaires for depression and anxiety: systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets