首页> 外文期刊>General hospital psychiatry >Recognition of anxiety disorders by family physicians after rigorous medical record case extraction. Results of the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety
【24h】

Recognition of anxiety disorders by family physicians after rigorous medical record case extraction. Results of the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety

机译:严格的病历记录提取后,家庭医生对焦虑症的识别。荷兰抑郁症和焦虑症研究的结果

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Objective: Previous studies reported low and inconsistent rates of recognition of anxiety disorders by family physicians (FPs). Our objectives were to examine (a) which combination of indications within medical records most accurately reflects recognition of anxiety disorders and (b) whether patient and FP characteristics were related to recognition. Method: A cross-sectional comparison was made between FPs' registration and a structured diagnostic interview, the Composite International Diagnostic Interview, according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, criteria. Seven definitions of recognition were tested using diagnostic codes, medication data, referral data and free text in medical records. Data were derived from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety. A total of 816 patients were included. Results: Recognition ranged between 9.1% and 85.8%. A broader definition was associated with a higher recognition rate, but led to more false positives. The best definition comprised diagnostic codes for anxiety disorders and symptoms, strong free-text indications, medication and referral to mental health care. Generalized anxiety disorder was best recognized by this definition. Recognition was better among patients with increased severity, comorbid depression and older age. Conclusion: FPs recognized anxiety disorders better than previously reported when all medical record data were taken into account. However, most patients were nonspecifically labeled as having a mental health problem.
机译:目的:先前的研究报道家庭医生(FPs)对焦虑症的识别率较低且不一致。我们的目标是检查(a)病历中哪种适应症最准确地反映对焦虑症的识别,以及(b)患者和FP特征是否与识别相关。方法:根据《精神障碍诊断和统计手册》(第四版)的标准,对FP的注册和结构化诊断访谈(综合国际诊断访谈)进行了横断面比较。使用诊断代码,药物数据,推荐数据和病历中的自由文本测试了七个识别定义。数据来自荷兰抑郁症和焦虑症研究。总共包括816名患者。结果:识别率介于9.1%和85.8%之间。较宽泛的定义与较高的识别率相关,但导致更多的误报。最好的定义包括焦虑症和症状的诊断代码,强烈的自由文本适应症,药物和转介至精神保健。该定义最好地识别了广泛性焦虑症。在严重程度增加,合并症,高龄患者中,识别度更高。结论:考虑到所有病历数据后,FPs识别焦虑症的能力比先前报道的要好。但是,大多数患者被非特定地标记为患有精神健康问题。

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