首页> 外文OA文献 >Distinguishing between emotional distress and psychiatric disorder in primary care attenders: A cross sectional study of the four-dimensional symptom questionnaire (4DSQ)
【2h】

Distinguishing between emotional distress and psychiatric disorder in primary care attenders: A cross sectional study of the four-dimensional symptom questionnaire (4DSQ)

机译:区分基层医疗服务人员的情绪困扰和精神疾病:二维症状问卷的横断面研究(4DSQ)

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Background Detection of psychiatric disorder in primary care is a complex issue. Distinctions between 'normal' emotional distress and psychiatric disorder depend on how disorder is conceptualized. Our aim was to explore two different conceptualizations by examining patients' scores on one-dimensional depression measures and scores on the Four Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ), a measure that uniquely has separate dimensions for general distress and depressive disorder. Methods This was a cross sectional study of 487 primary care patients attending general clinics in Hampshire, UK. Patients completed the 4DSQ, Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) whilst in the waiting room. Results The 4DSQ classified 26% (126/485) of patients as having heightened distress levels and 8% (38/468) as possible cases of depressive disorder. Casesness was consistently higher across the one-dimensional measures (PHQ-9: 16%, GHQ-12: 28%, HADS-D: 13%). Of those patients deemed possible cases by the PHQ-9 (≥10), the 4DSQ classified 91% (71/78) as having heightened distress and 44% (32/72) as possible cases of depressive disorder. Limitations The sample was predominately older and white, which may limit generalizability of the findings to more diverse patient groups. There are limits to self-report measures in the assessment of complex diagnostic issues. Conclusions Inclusion of a distinct general distress dimension alongside a dimension focusing on specific depression symptomatology lowered the number of primary care patients classified as possible cases of disorder. This view of symptoms may have implications for the targeting of existing treatments, and may be useful in guiding the development of novel self-management interventions.
机译:背景初级保健中精神病的检测是一个复杂的问题。 “正常”情绪困扰与精神障碍之间的区别取决于对障碍的概念化方式。我们的目的是通过检查患者在一维抑郁量表上的得分和四维症状问卷(4DSQ)上的得分来探索两种不同的概念化,这是一种针对一般困扰和抑郁症具有独特维度的度量。方法这是一项横断面研究,对英国汉普郡的487名就诊普通诊所的初级保健患者进行了研究。患者在候诊室中填写了4DSQ,患者健康问卷9(PHQ-9),一般健康问卷12(GHQ-12)和医院焦虑与抑郁量表(HADS)。结果4DSQ将26%(126/485)的患者的病情水平提高,将8%(38/468)的患者归为抑郁症患者。在一维测量中,案例的敏感性一直较高(PHQ-9:16%,GHQ-12:28%,HADS-D:13%)。在那些被PHQ-9(≥10)认为可能的病例中,4DSQ将91%(71/78)的患病加剧分类为44%(32/72)的抑郁症病例。局限性样本主要是年龄较大且呈白色,这可能会将结果的普遍性限制在更多不同的患者群体中。在评估复杂的诊断问题时,自我报告的措施受到限制。结论包括一个独特的一般困扰维度以及一个针对特定抑郁症症状的维度,降低了被归类为可能病症的初级保健患者的数量。症状的这种观点可能会影响现有治疗的针对性,并且可能有助于指导新型自我管理干预措施的发展。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
代理获取

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