4.7 Article

Brief self-rated screening for depression on the Internet

期刊

JOURNAL OF AFFECTIVE DISORDERS
卷 122, 期 3, 页码 253-259

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2009.07.013

关键词

Depression; Screening instruments; Internet use; Validation

资金

  1. VU University, Amsterdam

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The Internet offers promising possibilities for the quick screening of depression for treatment and research purposes. This paper aims to validate three self-rated measures to screen for depression on the Internet. SID (single-item depression scale). CES-D (Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale) and K10 (Kessler psychological distress scale) Methods Of the 502 subjects aged 18-80 who rated the SID, CES-D and K10 measures on the Internet, 157 (31%) subjects were also interviewed by telephone using the WHO Composite International Diagnostic Interview (C)IDI) for DSM-IV-disorders Results Cronbach's alpha for both web self-rated measures CES-D and K10 was 0 90 The SID correlated 0 68 (P<0 001) with the CES-D and with the K10 The CES-D correlated 0 84 with the K10 (P<0 001) Subjects with a DSM-IV diagnosis for any depressive disorder had significantly higher means (P<0 001) on the three self-rated measures for depressive symptoms than subjects without a diagnosis of any depressive disorder. Using any depressive disorder as the gold standard, the area under the curve (AUC) of the SID was 0 71 (95% CI 0.63-0 79), which was significantly lower than the AUC of the CES-D (AUC. 0.84, 95% CI 0 77-0 90, P = 0 003) and of the K10 (AUC 081, 95% CI 0 73-0 88, P = 0 0024) The AUCs for the K10 and CES-D did not differ significantly from each other Limitations The CIDI interviews were not recorded, so inter-rater reliability could not be calculated Conclusions The CES-D and K10 are reliable, valid tools for care providers to quickly screen depressive patients on the Internet and for researchers to collect data (C) 2009 Elsevier B V All rights reserved

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据