首页> 外文期刊>The British journal of general practice: the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners >The validity of the diagnosis of depression in general practice: is using criteria for diagnosis as a routine the answer?
【24h】

The validity of the diagnosis of depression in general practice: is using criteria for diagnosis as a routine the answer?

机译:一般情况下,抑郁症诊断的有效性:将诊断标准用作常规是答案吗?

获取原文
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: In general practice, making a diagnosis does not follow the same lines as in secondary care because every new diagnosis is made against 'foreknowledge' and could be coloured by it. This could explain low accordance and differences in diagnoses between primary and secondary care, in particular when mental illness such as depression is concerned. When criteria are used for diagnosis there should be no differences. AIM: To establish the accordance with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV) criteria of major depressive disorder when the diagnosis of depression has been made by general practitioners (GPs) for whom coding and using criteria for diagnosis is a daily routine (ICHPPC-2 criteria). METHOD: Ninety-nine general practice patients from four general practices belonging to the Continuous Morbidity Registry (CMR) of the University of Nijmegen in The Netherlands were interviewed using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (auto) 12-month version (DSM-IV criteria). Thirty-three patients had a code for depression; 33 patients a code for chronic nervous functional complaints (CNFC); and 33 had no code for mental illness (the depression and CNFC codes were given in the 12 months prior to the interview). Specificity and accordance with the DSM-IV criteria of major depressive disorder (MDD) were calculated with the results from the interviews. RESULTS: Of the 33 general practice depression cases (all matching ICHPPC-2 criteria), 28 matched DSM-IV criteria: 26 for MDD and 2 for dysthymia. No cases of DSM-IV MDD were found in the control group without a code for a mental disorder, and seven out of 33 were found in the control group with the code for CNFC. CONCLUSION: The specificity of diagnosis of depression made by GPs in a continuous morbidity registry and the accordance with DSM-IV criteria are high. Using criteria for diagnosis, which is a trend, could be one of the solutions towards a better diagnosis. As far as the sensitivity is concerned, GPs should not be distracted from using criteria for the diagnosis of depression when a large variety of complaints is presented.
机译:背景:在一般实践中,做出诊断与遵循二级保健的思路不同,因为每一项新的诊断都是针对“知识”做出的,并且可能会因此而带有颜色。这可以解释初级保健和二级保健之间的依从性和诊断差异,特别是在涉及精神疾病(例如抑郁症)时。当使用标准进行诊断时,应该没有差异。目的:在编码和使用诊断标准的全科医生(GPs)对抑郁症进行诊断后,要建立符合《精神障碍诊断和统计手册》第4版(DSM-IV)的主要抑郁症标准是日常工作(ICHPPC-2标准)。方法:使用复合国际诊断面试(自动)12个月版本(DSM-IV标准)对来自荷兰奈梅亨大学持续发病登记处(CMR)的4种普通科中的99名普通科患者进行了访谈。 。 33名患者有抑郁症代码; 33位患者,其代码为慢性神经功能障碍(CNFC);还有33位没有精神疾病代码(在面谈前的12个月中给出了抑郁症和CNFC代码)。根据访谈结果计算出特异性和重度抑郁症(MDD)的DSM-IV标准。结果:在33例普通抑郁症患者(均符合ICHPPC-2标准)中,有28项符合DSM-IV标准:MDD 26例,重度困难2例。在没有精神障碍代码的对照组中,没有发现DSM-IV MDD病例;在对照组中,发现有CNFC代码的33例中有7例。结论:在连续发病登记中,GPs诊断抑郁症的特异性很高,符合DSM-IV标准。使用诊断标准是一种趋势,这可能是实现更好诊断的解决方案之一。就敏感性而言,当提出各种各样的投诉时,GP不应分散使用抑郁症诊断标准的注意力。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号