Journal of Psychosomatic Research
Volume 69, Issue 4 , Pages 399-406, October 2010

Detecting depression in medically ill patients: Comparative accuracy of four screening questionnaires and physicians' diagnoses in Spanish population

  • Miren Orive

      Affiliations

    • Research Unit-CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Hospital Galdakao-Usansolo, Bizkaia, Spain
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Research Unit-CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Hospital Galdakao-Usansolo, B° Labeaga s/n, 48960 Bizkaia, Spain. Tel.: +34 94 4007105; fax: +34 94 4007132.
  • ,
  • Jesús A. Padierna

      Affiliations

    • Department of Psychiatry, Hospital Galdakao-Usansolo, Bº Labeaga s/n, Bizkaia, Spain
  • ,
  • Jose M. Quintana

      Affiliations

    • Research Unit-CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Hospital Galdakao-Usansolo, Bizkaia, Spain
  • ,
  • Carlota Las-Hayas

      Affiliations

    • Research Unit-CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Hospital Galdakao-Usansolo, Bizkaia, Spain
  • ,
  • Kalliopi Vrotsou

      Affiliations

    • Research Unit-CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Hospital Galdakao-Usansolo, Bizkaia, Spain
  • ,
  • Urko Aguirre

      Affiliations

    • Research Unit-CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Hospital Galdakao-Usansolo, Bizkaia, Spain

Received 3 April 2009; received in revised form 18 April 2010; accepted 19 April 2010. published online 11 August 2010.

Abstract 

Objective

The purpose of this study is to compare the diagnostic accuracy of four depression screening tools commonly used in patients with medical disorders, relative to a reference diagnostic standard—a structured psychiatric interview.

Methods

The Depression in the Medically Ill-18 (DMI-18) questionnaire was administered to 167 patients with medical disorders; of those, 53 completed the Beck Depression Inventory for Primary Care (BDI-PC), 67 the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and 46 the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). The entire sample was also interviewed with a structured psychiatric interview conducted by a mental health professional. Sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios (LRs), and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated and compared for the different measures.

Results

At their respective recommended cutoff points, sensitivities [95% confidence interval (CI)] were 86% (70–95), 82% (63–94), 93% (86–97), and 68% (47–85) for the HADS-D, BDI-PC, DMI-18, and PHQ-9, respectively, while specificities ranged from 72% (47–90) for BDI-PC to 89% (72–98) for PHQ-9. The sensitivities of DMI-18 were significantly higher compared to those of HADS-D (P=.045) and PHQ-9 (P=.01). The PHQ-9 questionnaire obtained the most favorable positive LR (6.35; 95% CI, 2.48–18.36). In contrast, the DMI-18 showed the best negative LR (0.09; 95% CI, 0.04–0.18). Areas under the curves (95% CI) ranged from 0.92 (0.83–1.02) to 0.84 (0.74–0.94). Statistically significant differences were found between the AUCs of the DMI-10 and the BDI-PC.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that all evaluated scales have acceptable abilities and can be used as screening instruments for depression in patients with medical disorders. The DMI stands out for its sensitivity.

Keywords: Depression, Screening, Medical disorder, Psychometrics

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 30.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0022-3999(10)00170-4

doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2010.04.007

Journal of Psychosomatic Research
Volume 69, Issue 4 , Pages 399-406, October 2010