4.5 Article

Diagnosing major depression in medical outpatients acceptability of telephone interviews

Journal

JOURNAL OF PSYCHOSOMATIC RESEARCH
Volume 55, Issue 4, Pages 385-387

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3999(02)00637-2

Keywords

cancer; depression; outpatient; screening; telephone

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To assess the acceptability to patients of a diagnostic interview for depression (Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, SCID) conducted over the telephone to their homes. Method: Postal questionnaire survey of patients who had attended an oncology outpatient clinic where they had scored high on a screening questionnaire and had subsequently undergone an SCID interview over the telephone. Results: Of the 224 patients telephoned, five refused the diagnostic inter-view. Of the 219 who were interviewed, 184 satisfactorily completed and returned the postal questionnaire (84% response rate). Only 17% reported the interview to be distressing. Ninety-four percent of all questionnaire respondents and 84% (n = 31) of those who reported the interview to have been distressing endorsed the item Had I known in advance what answering the questions would have been like for me, I would still have agreed to take part. Perceiving the interview as distressing was associated with having major depression (P < .001). Forty-seven percent said that, given the choice, they would have preferred a face-to-face interview. Conclusion: Telephone-administered diagnostic interviews are acceptable to most cancer patients and may even be preferred to face-to-face interviews at the hospital. This finding, together with the existing evidence of its validity, should encourage the use of telephone diagnostic interviews for depression, particularly when face-to-face interviews are impracticable, in both research studies and clinical practice. Indeed, a substantial proportion of patients may actually prefer them. (C) 2003 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