Ali Mertcan Köse, Paul Petzold, Dario Zocholl, Polychronis Kostoulas, Matthias Rose, Felix Fischer
{"title":"Prevalence Estimation Using a Depression Screening Tool in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: Comparison of Different Cutoffs","authors":"Ali Mertcan Köse, Paul Petzold, Dario Zocholl, Polychronis Kostoulas, Matthias Rose, Felix Fischer","doi":"10.1002/mpr.70019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in the US relies on the depression screening tool PHQ-9 to assess depressive symptoms in the general population. For prevalence estimation, PHQ-9s imperfect diagnostic accuracy can be modeled with a Bayesian Latent Class Model. We investigate the impact of different cutoffs on prevalence estimation.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We used data from the 16-th wave of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). We assessed the joint posterior distribution to asssess the prevalence of major depression as well as sensitivity and specificity of the PHQ-9 at cutoffs 5 to 15. We also assessed the impact of weakly and strongly informative prevalence priors.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Data from 9693 participants of the NHANES Wave 2019–2020 were analyzed. Under weakly informative prevalence priors, prevalence estimates ranged from 16.0% (95% CrI: 0.3%–87.8%) when using a cut-off of 5% to 3.9% (0.2%–12.7%) at 13. More informative prevalence priors led to narrower credible intervals, but the observed data was still in accordance with a wide range of possible MDD prevalence estimates.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Regardless of the cutoff and the prevalence prior chosen, prevalence estimation of major depressive disorders in the NHANES based on the PHQ-9 is imprecise.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50310,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research","volume":"34 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/mpr.70019","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mpr.70019","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives
The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in the US relies on the depression screening tool PHQ-9 to assess depressive symptoms in the general population. For prevalence estimation, PHQ-9s imperfect diagnostic accuracy can be modeled with a Bayesian Latent Class Model. We investigate the impact of different cutoffs on prevalence estimation.
Methods
We used data from the 16-th wave of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). We assessed the joint posterior distribution to asssess the prevalence of major depression as well as sensitivity and specificity of the PHQ-9 at cutoffs 5 to 15. We also assessed the impact of weakly and strongly informative prevalence priors.
Results
Data from 9693 participants of the NHANES Wave 2019–2020 were analyzed. Under weakly informative prevalence priors, prevalence estimates ranged from 16.0% (95% CrI: 0.3%–87.8%) when using a cut-off of 5% to 3.9% (0.2%–12.7%) at 13. More informative prevalence priors led to narrower credible intervals, but the observed data was still in accordance with a wide range of possible MDD prevalence estimates.
Conclusions
Regardless of the cutoff and the prevalence prior chosen, prevalence estimation of major depressive disorders in the NHANES based on the PHQ-9 is imprecise.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research (MPR) publishes high-standard original research of a technical, methodological, experimental and clinical nature, contributing to the theory, methodology, practice and evaluation of mental and behavioural disorders. The journal targets in particular detailed methodological and design papers from major national and international multicentre studies. There is a close working relationship with the US National Institute of Mental Health, the World Health Organisation (WHO) Diagnostic Instruments Committees, as well as several other European and international organisations.
MPR aims to publish rapidly articles of highest methodological quality in such areas as epidemiology, biostatistics, generics, psychopharmacology, psychology and the neurosciences. Articles informing about innovative and critical methodological, statistical and clinical issues, including nosology, can be submitted as regular papers and brief reports. Reviews are only occasionally accepted.
MPR seeks to monitor, discuss, influence and improve the standards of mental health and behavioral neuroscience research by providing a platform for rapid publication of outstanding contributions. As a quarterly journal MPR is a major source of information and ideas and is an important medium for students, clinicians and researchers in psychiatry, clinical psychology, epidemiology and the allied disciplines in the mental health field.