Premium
Screening for depression in general practice and related medical settings
Author(s) -
Hickie Ian B,
Davenport Tracey A,
Ricci Cristina S
Publication year - 2002
Publication title -
medical journal of australia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.904
H-Index - 131
eISSN - 1326-5377
pISSN - 0025-729X
DOI - 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2002.tb04869.x
Subject(s) - psycinfo , medline , data extraction , medicine , depression (economics) , family medicine , systematic review , psychiatry , law , economics , macroeconomics , political science
Objective: To determine if screening in general practice and related medical settings improves management and clinical outcomes in people with depression. Data sources: The Medline (1966–2002), EMBASE (1980–2002) and PsycINFO (1966–2002) databases were searched. These were supplemented by searching the Cochrane databases (to 2002); performing additional specific searches on Medline, EMBASE and PsycINFO; scrutinising reference lists of selected articles; and querying experts. Study selection: Inclusion criteria were: review of prospective studies with a primary focus of depression screening in general practice settings; review of studies of healthy populations or people with known depression; publication in a peer‐reviewed journal; and written in English. Eleven reviews that satisfied these criteria were assessed for quality using the Oxman and Guyatt Index. Four reviews met the criterion of a score of five or more. Data extraction: One author tabulated relevant material (including number and type of studies, outcomes/endpoints, measures of association/statistical results, and findings) from the four key reviews. A second author independently checked the accuracy of this extracted material. Data synthesis: Brief self‐report instruments have acceptable psychometric properties and are practical for use in general practice settings. Screening increases the recognition and diagnosis of depression and, when integrated with a commitment to provide coordinated and prompt follow‐up of diagnosis and treatment, clinical outcomes are improved. Conclusions: Although controversial, the evidence is now in favour of the appropriate use of screening tools in primary care.