Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 895

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The National Depressive and Manic-Depressive Association Consensus Statement on the Undertreatment of Depression

Hirschfeld, Robert M. A.·1997·JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: A consensus conference on the reasons for the undertreatment of depression was organized by the National Depressive and Manic Depressive Association (NDMDA) on January 17-18, 1996. The target audience included health policymakers, clinicians, patients and their families, and the public at large. Six key questions were addressed: (1) Is depression undertreated in the community and in the clinic? (2) What is the economic cost to society of depression? (3) What have been the efforts in the past to redress undertreatment and how successful have they been? (4) What are the reasons for the gap between our knowledge of the diagnosis and treatment of depression and actual treatment received in this country? (5) What can we do to narrow this gap? (6) What can we do immediately to narrow this gap? PARTICIPANTS: Consensus panel members were drawn from psychiatry, psychology, family practice, internal medicine, managed care and public health, consumers, and the general public. The panelists listened to a set of presentations with background papers from experts on diagnosis, epidemiology, treatment, and cost of treatment. EVIDENCE: Experts summarized relevant data from the world scientific literature on the 6 questions posed for the conference. CONSENSUS PROCESS: Panel members discussed openly all material presented to them in executive session. Selected panelists prepared first drafts of the consensus statements for each question. All of these drafts were read by all panelists and were edited and reedited until consensus was achieved. CONCLUSIONS: There is overwhelming evidence that individuals with depression are being seriously undertreated. Safe, effective, and economical treatments are available. The cost to individuals and society of this undertreatment is substantial. Long suffering, suicide, occupational impairment, and impairment in interpersonal and family relationships exist. Efforts to redress this gap have included provider educational programs and public educational programs. Reasons for the continuing gap include patient, provider, and health care system factors. Patient-based reasons include failure to recognize the symptoms, underestimating the severity, limited access, reluctance to see a mental health care specialist due to stigma, noncompliance with treatment, and lack of health insurance. Provider factors include poor professional school education about depression, limited training in interpersonal skills, stigma, inadequate time to evaluate and treat depression, failure to consider psychotherapeutic approaches, and prescription of inadequate doses of antidepressant medication for inadequate durations. Mental health care systems create barriers to receiving optimal treatment. Strategies to narrow the gap include enhancing the role of patients and families as participants in care and advocates; developing performance standards for behavioral health care systems, including incentives for positive identification, assessment, and treatment of depression; enhancing educational programs for providers and the public; enhancing collaboration among provider subtypes (eg, primary care providers and mental health professionals); and conducting research on development and testing of new treatments for depression.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.1997.03540280071036

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Hirschfeld, R. M. A.
Venue
JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
Published
1997-01-22
Volume
277
Issue
4
Pages
333
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2131806832
Cited by
895
References
3
FWCI
102.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.