4.5 Article

Recognition of anxiety disorders by the general practitioner: results from the DASMAP Study

期刊

GENERAL HOSPITAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 34, 期 3, 页码 227-233

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2012.01.012

关键词

Anxiety disorders; Epidemiology; General practitioner

资金

  1. Direccio General de Planificacio i Avaluacio Sanitaria-Departament de Salut-Generalitat de Catalunya (Barcelona, Spain)
  2. Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo, Instituto de Salud Carlos III [Red RD06/0018/0017]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The objectives were to determine the levels of general practitioner (GP) recognition of anxiety disorders and examine associated factors. Methods: An epidemiological survey was carried out in 77 primary care centers representative of Catalonia. A total of 3815 patients were assessed. Results: GPs identified 185 of the 666 individuals diagnosed as meeting the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis 1 Disorders (SCID-1) criteria for any anxiety disorder (sensitivity 0.28). Regarding specific anxiety disorders, panic disorder was registered in just three of the patients who, according to the SCID-I, did not meet the criteria for this condition. Generalized anxiety disorder was recorded by the GP in 46 cases, 4 of them being concordant with the SCID-I (sensitivity 0.03). The presence of comorbid hypertension was associated with an increased probability of recognition. Emotional problems as the patients' main complaint and additional appointments with a mental health specialist were associated with both adequate and erroneous recognition. Being female, having more frequent appointments with the GP and having higher levels of self-perceived stress were related to false positives. As disability increased, the probability of being erroneously detected decreased. Conclusion: GPs recognized anxiety disorders in some sufferers but still failed with respect to differentiating between anxiety disorder subtypes and disability assessment. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.5
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