Development of a simple screening tool for common mental disorders in general practice

Abstract

Objecti ve: To develop and validate a self-report screeni ng 1001for common mental disorders.Design and setting: Sequentia l development and validation studies in three cohorts of patie nts in gene ral practice and one cohort of palients in a specialist psychiatry clinic.Participants : 1585 palients in gene ral practice examined cross-sectionally and longitudina lly; 465 15 patie nts attending 386 general practitione rs nationwide ; 364 patients participating in a longitudinal study of psych iatric disorders in general pra ctice; a nd 522 patie nts atten ding a s pecialist psyc hiatry clinic.Main outc ome measures : Pe rfo rma nce of the 12 items from the 34-item SPHERE questionnaire against DSM-III-R a nd DSM-IV diagnoses of psychiatric disorder, self-reported Brief Disability Questionna ire findings , GPs' ratings of patients' needs for psychological ca re and degree of risk resulting from men tal disorder , and pat ients' and GPs' re ports of reasons for presentation.Results : Six somatic and six psyc hological questions identify two levels (and three types) of mental disorder: pa tie nts reporting both characteristic psychological and somatic symptoms (Level 1, Type 1), and patients repo rting either psychologica l symptoms (Level 2, Type 2) or somatic symptoms (Level 2, Type 3). This classification system predicts disability ra tings (Level 1, 8.2 "days out of role in the last rnonm" and Leve/ 2, 4.1 and 5.4 "da ys out of role in the last month" for Types 2 and 3, respectively) , rates of lifetime psychiatric diagnoses (Level 1, 63% and Level 2, 59% a nd 48%, res pe ctive ly), both patie nts ' and GPs ' report of reasons for pres e nta tion, and doctors' ra tings of ris k as a res ult of mental diso rder. The re a re important and differing socio demog raphic correlates for the three types of men tal diso rders .-conc tuston: A classification sys tem based on the 12 items from the sa-Item S PHERE questionnaire ca n be used to identify common mental disorde rs . This system has a cceptable validity and reliability, a nd is suited specifically for general practice settings.

Post-infective and chronic fatigue syndromes precipitated by viral and non-viral pathogens: prospective cohort study

“…At each visit, we recorded detailed self report assessments of physical and psychological health and collected a blood sample. We used the 34 item somatic and psychological health report (SPHERE) to monitor a wide range of physical and psychological symptoms 15. An empirically derived subscale that records somatic symptoms (the SOMA) identified the key clinical features of prolonged fatigue states 16.…”

Associations Between Depression and Anxiety Symptoms and Retinal Vessel Caliber in Adolescents and Young Adults

“…The SPHERE has been shown to have adequate reliability and validity (33, 40, 41). Internal consistency reliability for the SPHERE and the depression/anxiety, somatization, and fatigue subscales was 0.89, 0.84, 0.70, and 0.75, respectively (40).…”

“…Internal consistency reliability for the SPHERE and the depression/anxiety, somatization, and fatigue subscales was 0.89, 0.84, 0.70, and 0.75, respectively (40). A prior study showed that the SPHERE accurately identified 93% of individuals with current DSM depression, anxiety, or somatoform disorders (41). Moreover, the depression/anxiety subscale shows substantial heritability (40%) and correlates strongly with the personality trait of neuroticism (r=0.64) (40).…”

Using New and Emerging Technologies to Identify and Respond to Suicidality Among Help-Seeking Young People: A Cross-Sectional Study

“…Specifically, participants were asked “Have you recently thought that you should cut down on alcohol or other addictive drugs?” (derived from the CAGE questionnaire; [32]) and “Have you recently had a friend, relative or doctor suggest that you should cut down on alcohol or other addictive drugs?” (derived from the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test; [33]). Participants who answered “no” to one or both of these questions were categorized as “no problem”, and participants who answered “yes” to both questions were categorized as “likely problem” [34]. …”