Is there a mental health diagnostic crisis in primary care? Current research practices in global mental health cannot answer that question.

IF 5.9 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Brandon A Kohrt, Dristy Gurung, Ritika Singh, Sauharda Rai, Mani Neupane, Elizabeth L Turner, Alyssa Platt, Shifeng Sun, Kamal Gautam, Nagendra P Luitel, Mark J D Jordans
{"title":"Is there a mental health diagnostic crisis in primary care? Current research practices in global mental health cannot answer that question.","authors":"Brandon A Kohrt, Dristy Gurung, Ritika Singh, Sauharda Rai, Mani Neupane, Elizabeth L Turner, Alyssa Platt, Shifeng Sun, Kamal Gautam, Nagendra P Luitel, Mark J D Jordans","doi":"10.1017/S2045796025000010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In low- and middle-income countries, fewer than 1 in 10 people with mental health conditions are estimated to be accurately diagnosed in primary care. This is despite more than 90 countries providing mental health training for primary healthcare workers in the past two decades. The lack of accurate diagnoses is a major bottleneck to reducing the global mental health treatment gap. In this commentary, we argue that current research practices are insufficient to generate the evidence needed to improve diagnostic accuracy. Research studies commonly determine accurate diagnosis by relying on self-report tools such as the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. This is problematic because self-report tools often overestimate prevalence, primarily due to their high rates of false positives. Moreover, nearly all studies on detection focus solely on depression, not taking into account the spectrum of conditions on which primary healthcare workers are being trained. Single condition self-report tools fail to discriminate among different types of mental health conditions, leading to a heterogeneous group of conditions masked under a single scale. As an alternative path forward, we propose improving research on diagnostic accuracy to better evaluate the reach of mental health service delivery in primary care. We recommend evaluating multiple conditions, statistically adjusting prevalence estimates generated from self-report tools, and consistently using structured clinical interviews as a gold standard. We propose clinically meaningful detection as 'good-enough' diagnoses incorporating multiple conditions accounting for context, health system and types of interventions available. Clinically meaningful identification can be operationalized differently across settings based on what level of diagnostic specificity is needed to select from available treatments. Rethinking research strategies to evaluate accuracy of diagnosis is vital to improve training, supervision and delivery of mental health services around the world.</p>","PeriodicalId":11787,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences","volume":"34 ","pages":"e7"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796025000010","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In low- and middle-income countries, fewer than 1 in 10 people with mental health conditions are estimated to be accurately diagnosed in primary care. This is despite more than 90 countries providing mental health training for primary healthcare workers in the past two decades. The lack of accurate diagnoses is a major bottleneck to reducing the global mental health treatment gap. In this commentary, we argue that current research practices are insufficient to generate the evidence needed to improve diagnostic accuracy. Research studies commonly determine accurate diagnosis by relying on self-report tools such as the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. This is problematic because self-report tools often overestimate prevalence, primarily due to their high rates of false positives. Moreover, nearly all studies on detection focus solely on depression, not taking into account the spectrum of conditions on which primary healthcare workers are being trained. Single condition self-report tools fail to discriminate among different types of mental health conditions, leading to a heterogeneous group of conditions masked under a single scale. As an alternative path forward, we propose improving research on diagnostic accuracy to better evaluate the reach of mental health service delivery in primary care. We recommend evaluating multiple conditions, statistically adjusting prevalence estimates generated from self-report tools, and consistently using structured clinical interviews as a gold standard. We propose clinically meaningful detection as 'good-enough' diagnoses incorporating multiple conditions accounting for context, health system and types of interventions available. Clinically meaningful identification can be operationalized differently across settings based on what level of diagnostic specificity is needed to select from available treatments. Rethinking research strategies to evaluate accuracy of diagnosis is vital to improve training, supervision and delivery of mental health services around the world.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
1.20%
发文量
121
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences is a prestigious international, peer-reviewed journal that has been publishing in Open Access format since 2020. Formerly known as Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale and established in 1992 by Michele Tansella, the journal prioritizes highly relevant and innovative research articles and systematic reviews in the areas of public mental health and policy, mental health services and system research, as well as epidemiological and social psychiatry. Join us in advancing knowledge and understanding in these critical fields.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信