2009
DOI: 10.1017/s1041610209991219
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Validity of the Brazilian version of the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) among primary care patients

Abstract: The GDS-30, GDS-15, GDS-10 and GDS-4 proved to be good screening instruments for depression in primary care clinics in Brazil, whereas the GDS-1 failed to perform adequately.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
60
1
13

Year Published

2010
2010
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 74 publications
(76 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
2
60
1
13
Order By: Relevance
“…The prevalence of depression in the elderly assisted by the FHS in Dourados was 34.4%, a result similar to those of studies conducted in Fortaleza (CE) (34.2%) (11) and Goiânia (GO) (35.1%) (17) .…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 81%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The prevalence of depression in the elderly assisted by the FHS in Dourados was 34.4%, a result similar to those of studies conducted in Fortaleza (CE) (34.2%) (11) and Goiânia (GO) (35.1%) (17) .…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 81%
“…The first question requires special attention, because when it is answered negatively, it present a high positive predictive value for depression (11) .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In fact, several abbreviated or short form versions of the GDS scales have been proposed (for a detailed review see Pocklington et al, 2016), but many of them include at least one item with DIF. For example, one or both DIF items (i.e., item 6 and item 10) were included in the various 10-item versions of the GDS (Castelo et al, 2010;D'Ath et al, 1994;Izal et al, 2010) as well as in the 4-item versions proposed by D 'Ath et al (1994) and Allgaier et al (2013). Finally, other brief versions -consisting of 4 items (Almeida and Almeida, 1999), 5 items (Hoyl et al, 1999;Italian version: Rinaldi et al, 2003), and 7 items (Broekman et al, 2011)-were derived from the GDS-15 excluding item 6 and item 10, but their equivalent functioning across different cognitive functioning groups was not tested when the subset of items is used as a stand-alone instrument.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such limitation is justifiable since that GDS-15 presents good sensitivity and specificity when compared to clinical interviews based on the DSM-IV criteria (29) . Moreover, the cognitive performance was measured with a brief neuropsychological exam which did not encompass all cognitive functions, such as cognitive flexibility.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%