Evaluating agreement between medical record diagnoses and independent evaluator diagnoses in a community-based effectiveness study.

K M Adams, G S Woodard, J Ehrenreich-May, G Ginsburg, A Jensen-Doss
{"title":"Evaluating agreement between medical record diagnoses and independent evaluator diagnoses in a community-based effectiveness study.","authors":"K M Adams, G S Woodard, J Ehrenreich-May, G Ginsburg, A Jensen-Doss","doi":"10.1080/23794925.2024.2414441","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Youth anxiety disorders are prevalent but undertreated. Poor diagnostic agreement between clinicians and researchers may contribute to misdiagnosis and mistreatment. However, few studies of diagnostic agreement focus specifically on anxiety disorders.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The current study evaluates diagnostic agreement between community clinicians and independent evaluators (IE) associated with a research study.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>IEs administered the Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule for DSM-5, Child Version, Child and Parent Forms to youth participating in a randomized controlled trial. Diagnostic agreement was assessed using Cohen's kappas. Youth (<i>N</i>=103) were about 14.3 years old (<i>SD</i>=1.6), largely cis-gender female (66%, <i>n</i>=68), heterosexual (57.3%, <i>n</i>=59), Hispanic/Latinx (53.4%, <i>n</i>=55), and White (53.4%, <i>n</i>=55).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>IEs assigned significantly more diagnoses than community clinicians (<i>t</i>(99)=-12.738, <i>d</i>=1.66, <i>p</i><.001). Individual diagnoses were collapsed into diagnostic clusters: anxiety, depression, trauma and stressor, obsessive-compulsive, and behavioral disorders. There was no agreement for anxiety, trauma and stressor, obsessive-compulsive clusters (<i>k</i>s<0.20). The depression cluster showed minimal agreement (<i>k=</i>0.28, <i>p</i><.001), and behavioral disorders showed weak agreement (<i>k</i>=0.49, <i>p</i><.001). There was no agreement for four individual anxiety disorder diagnoses (<i>k</i>s<0.20) except for panic disorder, which had minimal agreement (<i>k=</i>.32, <i>p</i><.001). Four additional anxiety disorder diagnoses could not be analyzed due to no diagnoses in one or both settings.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This study shows diagnostic agreement is poor between clinicians and researchers, especially for anxiety disorders. Findings suggest that semi-structured interviews can detect diagnoses that are being missed by clinicians. Future work should seek to identify and address barriers to implementation of evidenced-based assessments in community settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":72992,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based practice in child and adolescent mental health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12333535/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-based practice in child and adolescent mental health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23794925.2024.2414441","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Youth anxiety disorders are prevalent but undertreated. Poor diagnostic agreement between clinicians and researchers may contribute to misdiagnosis and mistreatment. However, few studies of diagnostic agreement focus specifically on anxiety disorders.

Objective: The current study evaluates diagnostic agreement between community clinicians and independent evaluators (IE) associated with a research study.

Method: IEs administered the Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule for DSM-5, Child Version, Child and Parent Forms to youth participating in a randomized controlled trial. Diagnostic agreement was assessed using Cohen's kappas. Youth (N=103) were about 14.3 years old (SD=1.6), largely cis-gender female (66%, n=68), heterosexual (57.3%, n=59), Hispanic/Latinx (53.4%, n=55), and White (53.4%, n=55).

Results: IEs assigned significantly more diagnoses than community clinicians (t(99)=-12.738, d=1.66, p<.001). Individual diagnoses were collapsed into diagnostic clusters: anxiety, depression, trauma and stressor, obsessive-compulsive, and behavioral disorders. There was no agreement for anxiety, trauma and stressor, obsessive-compulsive clusters (ks<0.20). The depression cluster showed minimal agreement (k=0.28, p<.001), and behavioral disorders showed weak agreement (k=0.49, p<.001). There was no agreement for four individual anxiety disorder diagnoses (ks<0.20) except for panic disorder, which had minimal agreement (k=.32, p<.001). Four additional anxiety disorder diagnoses could not be analyzed due to no diagnoses in one or both settings.

Discussion: This study shows diagnostic agreement is poor between clinicians and researchers, especially for anxiety disorders. Findings suggest that semi-structured interviews can detect diagnoses that are being missed by clinicians. Future work should seek to identify and address barriers to implementation of evidenced-based assessments in community settings.

在一项基于社区的有效性研究中评估病历诊断与独立评估者诊断之间的一致性。
背景:青少年焦虑症很普遍,但治疗不足。临床医生和研究人员之间的诊断不一致可能导致误诊和虐待。然而,很少有关于诊断一致性的研究专门关注焦虑症。目的:本研究评估社区临床医生和独立评估者(IE)与一项研究相关的诊断一致性。方法:IEs对参加随机对照试验的青少年实施DSM-5、儿童版、儿童和家长表格中的焦虑障碍访谈表。使用Cohen’s kappas评估诊断一致性。青年(N=103)约14.3岁(SD=1.6),主要为顺性女性(66%,N= 68)、异性恋(57.3%,N= 59)、西班牙裔/拉丁裔(53.4%,N= 55)和白人(53.4%,N= 55)。结果:IEs的诊断明显多于社区临床医生(t(99)=-12.738, d=1.66, pksk=0.28, pk=0.49, pksk= 0.32, p)。讨论:本研究显示临床医生和研究人员的诊断一致性较差,特别是对焦虑症的诊断一致性较差。研究结果表明,半结构化访谈可以发现临床医生遗漏的诊断。今后的工作应设法查明和解决在社区环境中实施循证评估的障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信