4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Improving screening for mental disorders in the primary care setting by combining the GHQ-12 and SCL-90-R subscales

期刊

COMPREHENSIVE PSYCHIATRY
卷 42, 期 2, 页码 166-173

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/comp.2001.19751

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most of patients with mental disorders are cared for in the primary care sector, rather than in the mental health sector. Self-report questionnaires can be used as screening instruments to identify mental disorders in primary care. The 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) is a widely used screening questionnaire for common mental disorders. Unfortunately, the GHQ-12 generates many false presumptive positives and forces the employer to expend resources on confirmatory testing. Therefore, the aim of the present report was to investigate a two-stage questionnaire screening design in a primary care setting. The GHQ-12 was used as an initial screening test followed by the Symptom Checklist (SCL-90-R). A randomly selected sample of adult outpatients (N = 408) from 18 primary care offices was screened using the two questionnaires. A structured diagnostic interview and an impairment rating were used as standards. Subjects were classified into true-positives and false-positives based on their GHQ-12 score and the clinical interview. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic analysis were performed to determine whether the SCL-90-R increased accuracy in screening for mental disorders by discriminating between true-positive and false-positive cases. The SCL-90-R subscales Depression, Obsessive-Compulsive, and Somatization were identified as factors associated with the GHQ-12 classification. Therefore, a significant improvement in screening performance of the GHQ-12 is obtained by combination of the test results. The approach may reduce artifact due to high scoring tendencies not associated with psychological disorder. Copyright (C) 2001 by W.B. Saunders Company.

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

4.5
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