...
首页> 外文期刊>Psychotherapy and psychosomatics >Increased Recognition of Depression in Primary Care. Comparison between Primary-Care Physician and ICD-10 Diagnosis of Depression.
【24h】

Increased Recognition of Depression in Primary Care. Comparison between Primary-Care Physician and ICD-10 Diagnosis of Depression.

机译:在初级保健中对抑郁症的认识增加。初级保健医师与ICD-10抑郁症诊断的比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background: Underrecognition and undertreatment of depression in primary care has been regarded as a major public health problem. In contrast, some studies found that among patients labeled as depressed by primary-care physicians (PCPs), a relevant proportion do not satisfy international diagnostic criteria for depression. The aims of this study are: (1) to assess disparity between PCP diagnosis and research diagnosis of depression; (2) to compare antidepressant treatment in concordant and discordant cases of depression. Methods: Data are gathered from a national survey on depressive disorders in primary care, conducted with the collaboration of 191 PCPs. Three hundred and sixty-one PCP patients were evaluated, and their psychiatric diagnosis was established by the 'unaided' PCPs and by using a research interview for depression. Results: PCPs recognized 79.4% of cases of depression and prescribed antidepressants to 40.9% of them. Yet, 45.0% of patients labeled as depressed by the PCPs were not cases ofdepression according to ICD-10 criteria; 26.9% of false-positive cases received an antidepressant. Globally, 35% of antidepressants for 'depression' were prescribed to false-positive cases. Conclusions: Underrecognition and undertreatment of depression in primary care seem to be less alarming. Conversely, PCP diagnoses of depression appear to be more inclusive than psychiatric diagnostic criteria. A possible consequence of this apparently more inclusive diagnostic threshold may be an excessive use of antidepressants. These changes require a corresponding change in research, toward efficacy and safety of the treatment of milder cases, and in education, toward the distinction between the management of mild and severe cases of depression. Copyright (c) 2005 S. Karger AG, Basel.
机译:背景:初级保健中对抑郁症的认识不足和治疗不足已被视为主要的公共卫生问题。相反,一些研究发现,在被初级保健医生(PCP)标记为抑郁症的患者中,相关比例不满足抑郁症的国际诊断标准。这项研究的目的是:(1)评估PCP诊断与抑郁症研究诊断之间的差异; (2)比较一致和不一致抑郁症患者的抗抑郁治疗。方法:数据收集自191位PCP合作开展的全国性初级保健抑郁症调查。对361例PCP患者进行了评估,并通过“独立”的PCP并通过对抑郁症的研究访谈来确定他们的精神病诊断。结果:PCPs识别出79.4%的抑郁症患者,并开出了40.9%的抗抑郁药。然而,根据ICD-10标准,有45.0%的被PCP标记为抑郁症的患者不是抑郁症患者。 26.9%的假阳性病例接受了抗抑郁药治疗。在全球范围内,假阳性病例开出了35%的“抑郁症”抗抑郁药处方。结论:在初级保健中对抑郁症的认识不足和治疗不足似乎并不那么令人担忧。相反,PCP抑郁症的诊断似乎比精神病学诊断标准更具包容性。这种明显更具包容性的诊断阈值的可能后果可能是过度使用抗抑郁药。这些变化需要在研究方面进行相应的改变,以改善轻度病例的疗效和安全性,并在教育方面改变轻度和重度抑郁症之间的区别。版权所有(c)2005 S.Karger AG,巴塞尔。

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