4.5 Article

Suicidal ideation in persons with neurological conditions: prevalence, associations and validation of the PHQ-9 for suicidal ideation

Journal

GENERAL HOSPITAL PSYCHIATRY
Volume 42, Issue -, Pages 22-26

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2016.06.006

Keywords

Suicide; Mental health; Diagnostic accuracy; Epidemiology; Depression

Categories

Funding

  1. Cumming School of Medicine
  2. Alberta Health Services
  3. Hotchkiss Brain Institute
  4. Alberta Innovates Health Solutions (AIHS)
  5. AIHS
  6. AIHS Population Health Investigator Award

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Our primary aimwas to validate the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9 as a screening tool for suicidal ideation (SI). Methods: Persons with epilepsy (n = 188), migraine (n = 208), multiple sclerosis (n = 151), and stroke (n = 122) completed questionnaires (e.g., PHQ-9) and the structured clinical interview for DSM-IV (SCID). Logistic regression was used to examine factors associated with SI [odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)]. The diagnostic accuracy of the PHQ-9 in identifying SI [sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive and negative predictive value (PPV and NPV)] was validated against the SCID. Results: The 2-week prevalence of SI ranged from 5.7% (stroke) to 12.7% (epilepsy). Factors most strongly associated with SI were depression [OR ranging from 14.6 (migraine) to 38.6 (stroke)] and anxiety [OR ranging from 8.6 (migraine) to 15.3 (epilepsy)] (see text for 95% CI). The PHQ-9 had good Se for SI in epilepsy (90%) and migraine (75.0%). PPV was poor while Sp and NPV were N90% for every condition. Conclusions: Screening for depression and anxiety is important in view of their strong association with SI. The PHQ-9 may be considered as a screening tool for SI, although it should not be relied on solely in view of its suboptimal PPV. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available