初级保健中是否存在心理健康诊断危机?目前全球精神卫生的研究实践无法回答这个问题。

IF 6.1 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":"初级保健中是否存在心理健康诊断危机?目前全球精神卫生的研究实践无法回答这个问题。","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":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11822449/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":6.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11822449/pdf/\",\"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}","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

摘要

在低收入和中等收入国家,估计只有不到十分之一的精神疾病患者在初级保健中得到准确诊断。尽管在过去二十年中有90多个国家为初级卫生保健工作者提供了精神卫生培训。缺乏准确的诊断是缩小全球精神卫生治疗差距的主要瓶颈。在这篇评论中,我们认为目前的研究实践不足以产生提高诊断准确性所需的证据。研究通常依靠自我报告工具(如患者健康问卷-9)来确定准确的诊断。这是有问题的,因为自我报告工具往往高估了患病率,主要是由于它们的高假阳性率。此外,几乎所有关于检测的研究都只关注抑郁症,而没有考虑到初级保健工作者正在接受培训的各种疾病。单一条件自我报告工具无法区分不同类型的心理健康状况,导致在单一量表下掩盖了异质组的状况。作为一种替代途径,我们建议改进诊断准确性的研究,以更好地评估初级保健中精神卫生服务提供的范围。我们建议评估多种情况,统计调整自报告工具产生的患病率估计,并始终使用结构化临床访谈作为金标准。我们建议临床有意义的检测作为“足够好”的诊断,结合多种条件,考虑环境、卫生系统和可用的干预措施类型。根据从现有治疗方法中选择的诊断特异性水平,可以在不同的环境下进行有临床意义的鉴定。重新思考评估诊断准确性的研究策略对于改善世界各地精神卫生服务的培训、监督和提供至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

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

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

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

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

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
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信