Cargando…

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Primary Care Screener for Affective Disorder (PC-SAD) in Primary Care

BACKGROUND: Depression goes often unrecognised and untreated in non-psychiatric medical settings. Screening has recently gained acceptance as a first step towards improving depression recognition and management. The Primary Care Screener for Affective Disorders (PC-SAD) is a self-administered questi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Picardi, Angelo, Adler, D.A, Rogers, W.H, Lega, I, Zerella, M.P, Matteucci, G, Tarsitani, L, Caredda, M, Gigantesco, A, Biondi, M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Bentham Open 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3804886/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24155771
http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1745017901309010164
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Depression goes often unrecognised and untreated in non-psychiatric medical settings. Screening has recently gained acceptance as a first step towards improving depression recognition and management. The Primary Care Screener for Affective Disorders (PC-SAD) is a self-administered questionnaire to screen for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and Dysthymic Disorder (Dys) which has a sophisticated scoring algorithm that confers several advantages. This study tested its performance against a ‘gold standard’ diagnostic interview in primary care. METHODS: A total of 416 adults attending 13 urban general internal medicine primary care practices completed the PC-SAD. Of 409 who returned a valid PC-SAD, all those scoring positive (N=151) and a random sample (N=106) of those scoring negative were selected for a 3-month telephone follow-up assessment including the administration of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis I Disorders (SCID-I) by a psychiatrist who was masked to PC-SAD results. RESULTS: Most selected patients (N=212) took part in the follow-up assessment. After adjustment for partial verification bias the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value for MDD were 90%, 83%, 51%, and 98%. For Dys, the corresponding figures were 78%, 79%, 8%, and 88%. CONCLUSIONS: While some study limitations suggest caution in interpreting our results, this study corroborated the diagnostic validity of the PC-SAD, although the low PPV may limit its usefulness with regard to Dys. Given its good psychometric properties and the short average administration time, the PC-SAD might be the screening instrument of choice in settings where the technology for computer automated scoring is available.