{"title":"初级保健中评估精神疾病的筛查工具:系统综述。","authors":"Bernadette Neulinger, Christopher Ebert, Kirsten Lochbühler, Antje Bergmann, Jochen Gensichen, Karoline Lukaschek","doi":"10.1080/13814788.2024.2418299","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To better manage patients with a wide range of mental health problems, general practitioners would benefit from diagnostically accurate and time-efficient screening tools that comprehensively assess mental illness. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to identify screening tools that either take a multiple-mental disorder or a transdiagnostic approach. As primary and secondary outcomes, diagnostic accuracy and time efficiency were investigated.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The data bases MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Psyndex and PsycINFO were searched. Studies reporting on multiple-mental disorder or transdiagnostic screening tools used in primary care with adult patients were included. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value served as measures of diagnostic accuracy. Time efficiency was evaluated by the number of items of a screening tool and the time required for its completion and evaluation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority of screening tools assessed multiple mental disorders separately. A sub-group of screening tools took a transdiagnostic approach by examining the spectrum of mood, anxiety and stress-related disorders. One screening tool used internalised, cognitive/somatic and externalised dysfunction as transdiagnostic domains of mental illness. Mostly, a sufficient sensitivity and specificity was reported. All screening tools were found to be time efficient.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The eleven identified screening tools can support general practitioners to identify patients with mental health problems. However, there was great heterogeneity concerning their diagnostic scope of psychopathology. Further screening tools for primary care are needed that target broad constructs of mental illness, such as transdiagnostic factors or personality dysfunction.</p>","PeriodicalId":54380,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of General Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11500526/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Screening tools assessing mental illness in primary care: A systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Bernadette Neulinger, Christopher Ebert, Kirsten Lochbühler, Antje Bergmann, Jochen Gensichen, Karoline Lukaschek\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13814788.2024.2418299\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To better manage patients with a wide range of mental health problems, general practitioners would benefit from diagnostically accurate and time-efficient screening tools that comprehensively assess mental illness. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to identify screening tools that either take a multiple-mental disorder or a transdiagnostic approach. As primary and secondary outcomes, diagnostic accuracy and time efficiency were investigated.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The data bases MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Psyndex and PsycINFO were searched. Studies reporting on multiple-mental disorder or transdiagnostic screening tools used in primary care with adult patients were included. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value served as measures of diagnostic accuracy. Time efficiency was evaluated by the number of items of a screening tool and the time required for its completion and evaluation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority of screening tools assessed multiple mental disorders separately. A sub-group of screening tools took a transdiagnostic approach by examining the spectrum of mood, anxiety and stress-related disorders. One screening tool used internalised, cognitive/somatic and externalised dysfunction as transdiagnostic domains of mental illness. Mostly, a sufficient sensitivity and specificity was reported. All screening tools were found to be time efficient.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The eleven identified screening tools can support general practitioners to identify patients with mental health problems. However, there was great heterogeneity concerning their diagnostic scope of psychopathology. Further screening tools for primary care are needed that target broad constructs of mental illness, such as transdiagnostic factors or personality dysfunction.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54380,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of General Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11500526/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of General Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2024.2418299\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of General Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2024.2418299","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Screening tools assessing mental illness in primary care: A systematic review.
Background: To better manage patients with a wide range of mental health problems, general practitioners would benefit from diagnostically accurate and time-efficient screening tools that comprehensively assess mental illness. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to identify screening tools that either take a multiple-mental disorder or a transdiagnostic approach. As primary and secondary outcomes, diagnostic accuracy and time efficiency were investigated.
Methods: The data bases MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Psyndex and PsycINFO were searched. Studies reporting on multiple-mental disorder or transdiagnostic screening tools used in primary care with adult patients were included. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value served as measures of diagnostic accuracy. Time efficiency was evaluated by the number of items of a screening tool and the time required for its completion and evaluation.
Results: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority of screening tools assessed multiple mental disorders separately. A sub-group of screening tools took a transdiagnostic approach by examining the spectrum of mood, anxiety and stress-related disorders. One screening tool used internalised, cognitive/somatic and externalised dysfunction as transdiagnostic domains of mental illness. Mostly, a sufficient sensitivity and specificity was reported. All screening tools were found to be time efficient.
Conclusion: The eleven identified screening tools can support general practitioners to identify patients with mental health problems. However, there was great heterogeneity concerning their diagnostic scope of psychopathology. Further screening tools for primary care are needed that target broad constructs of mental illness, such as transdiagnostic factors or personality dysfunction.
期刊介绍:
The EJGP aims to:
foster scientific research in primary care medicine (family medicine, general practice) in Europe
stimulate education and debate, relevant for the development of primary care medicine in Europe.
Scope
The EJGP publishes original research papers, review articles and clinical case reports on all aspects of primary care medicine (family medicine, general practice), providing new knowledge on medical decision-making, healthcare delivery, medical education, and research methodology.
Areas covered include primary care epidemiology, prevention, diagnosis, pharmacotherapy, non-drug interventions, multi- and comorbidity, palliative care, shared decision making, inter-professional collaboration, quality and safety, training and teaching, and quantitative and qualitative research methods.