Cited by 48Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and AccessPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The primary health care version of ICD-11: the detection of common mental disorders in general medical settings

Goldberg, David P., Prisciandaro, James J., Williams, Paul·2012·General Hospital Psychiatry

Abstract

Background The primary health care version of the ICD-11 is currently being revised.Aim To test two brief sets of symptoms for depression and anxiety in primary care settings, and validate them against diagnoses of major depression and current generalised anxiety made by the CIDI.Method The study took place in general medical or primary care clinics in 14 different countries, using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview adapted for primary care (CIDI-PC) in 5,438 patients. The latent structure of common symptoms was explored, and two symptom scales were derived from item response theory (IRT), these were then investigated against research diagnoses.Results Correlations between dimensions of anxious, depressive and somatic symptoms were found to be high. For major depression the 5 item depression scale has marked superiority over the usual 2 item scales used by both the ICD and DSM systems, and for anxiety there is some superiority. If the questions are used with patients that the clinician suspects may have a psychological disorder, the positive predictive value of the scale is between 78 and 90%.Conclusion The two scales allow clinicians to make diagnostic assessments of depression and anxiety with a high positive predictive value, provided they use them only when they suspect that a psychological disorder is present.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2012.06.006

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Goldberg, D. P., Prisciandaro, J. J., & Williams, P.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Medical University of South Carolina (US)
Corresponding author
Prisciandaro, James J.
Venue
General Hospital Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-11
Volume
34
Issue
6
Pages
665-670
ISSN
0163-8343 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2074390663
Cited by
48
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
4.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • General Hospital Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
ICD-11, common mental disorders, depression, generalized anxiety disorder, primary care diagnosis, item response theory, positive predictive value, somatic symptoms
MeSH terms
Anxiety Disorders, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Humans, Interview, Psychological, Predictive Value of Tests, Primary Health Care, Psychometrics, ROC Curve, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, International Classification of Diseases

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