Open Access
Screening for Depression in Daily Life: Development and External Validation of a Prediction Model Based on Actigraphy and Experience Sampling Method
Author(s) -
Olga Minaeva,
Harriëtte Riese,
Femke Lamers,
Niki Antypa,
Marieke Wichers,
Sanne H. Booij
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
jmir. journal of medical internet research/journal of medical internet research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.446
H-Index - 142
eISSN - 1439-4456
pISSN - 1438-8871
DOI - 10.2196/22634
Subject(s) - actigraphy , discriminative model , receiver operating characteristic , logistic regression , experience sampling method , data set , set (abstract data type) , statistics , psychology , artificial intelligence , machine learning , medicine , computer science , mathematics , psychiatry , social psychology , programming language , insomnia
Background In many countries, depressed individuals often first visit primary care settings for consultation, but a considerable number of clinically depressed patients remain unidentified. Introducing additional screening tools may facilitate the diagnostic process. Objective This study aimed to examine whether experience sampling method (ESM)-based measures of depressive affect and behaviors can discriminate depressed from nondepressed individuals. In addition, the added value of actigraphy-based measures was examined. Methods We used data from 2 samples to develop and validate prediction models. The development data set included 14 days of ESM and continuous actigraphy of currently depressed (n=43) and nondepressed individuals (n=82). The validation data set included 30 days of ESM and continuous actigraphy of currently depressed (n=27) and nondepressed individuals (n=27). Backward stepwise logistic regression analysis was applied to build the prediction models. Performance of the models was assessed with goodness-of-fit indices, calibration curves, and discriminative ability (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]). Results In the development data set, the discriminative ability was good for the actigraphy model (AUC=0.790) and excellent for both the ESM (AUC=0.991) and the combined-domains model (AUC=0.993). In the validation data set, the discriminative ability was reasonable for the actigraphy model (AUC=0.648) and excellent for both the ESM (AUC=0.891) and the combined-domains model (AUC=0.892). Conclusions ESM is a good diagnostic predictor and is easy to calculate, and it therefore holds promise for implementation in clinical practice. Actigraphy shows no added value to ESM as a diagnostic predictor but might still be useful when ESM use is restricted.