JAMA & ARCHIVES
Arch Fam Med
SEARCH
GO TO ADVANCED SEARCH
HOME  PAST ISSUES  TOPIC COLLECTIONS  CME  PHYSICIAN JOBS  CONTACT US  HELP
Institution: CLOCKSS  | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In
  Vol. 7 No. 5, September 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
 • Online Features
  Original Contribution
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (69)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related articles
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Primary Care/ Family Medicine
 •Psychiatry
 •Depression
 •Stress
 •Diagnosis
 •Alert me on articles by topic

False Positives, False Negatives, and the Validity of the Diagnosis of Major Depression in Primary Care

Michael S. Klinkman, MD, MS; James C. Coyne, PhD; Susan Gallo, PhD; Thomas L. Schwenk, MD

Arch Fam Med. 1998;7:451-461.

Objective  To explore the issues of diagnostic specificity and psychiatric "caseness" (ie, whether a patient meets the conditions to qualify as a "case" of a disease or syndrome) for major depression in the primary care setting.

Design  A cross-sectional study comparing the demographic, clinical, and mental health characteristics of patients identified as depressed by their family physicians with those meeting diagnostic criteria for major depression on the criterion standard Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Revised Third Edition.

Setting  The offices of 50 family physicians from private and academic practice in southeast Michigan.

Patients  A total of 1580 consecutive adult patients being seen for routine primary care services, from whom a weighted sample of 372 patients completed a set of mental health screening and diagnostic instruments.

Main Outcome Measures  Patients were assigned to 1 of 4 groups (true positive, false positive, false negative, and true negative) based on clinician identification and Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Revised Third Edition diagnosis. Differences between the 4 groups in demographic and clinical characteristics, scores on mental health instruments, and mental health history were explored.

Results  Physician identification of depression was strongly associated with increased familiarity with the patient and the presence of suggestive clinical cues, such as history of or treatment for depression, patient distress, and presence of vegetative symptoms. Patients in the false-positive group displayed significantly higher levels of distress and impairment and were significantly more likely to have a history of mental health problems and treatment than were those in the true-negative group. The 2 "misidentified" groups, false positives and false negatives, were indistinguishable in their clinical characteristics (impairment, distress, or mental health history). Both groups' scores occupied the middle ground between true positives and true negatives on most clinical characteristics. Physicians appeared to discriminate between these 2 groups on the basis of their knowledge of the patient's clinical history.

Conclusions  Misidentification of depression in primary care may be in part an artifact of the use of the psychiatric model of caseness in the primary care setting. Our results are most consistent with a chronic disease–based model of depressive disorder, in which patients classified as false positive and false negative occupy a clinical middle ground between clearly depressed and clearly nondepressed patients. Family physicians appear to respond to meaningful clinical cues in assigning the diagnosis of depression to these distressed and impaired patients.


From the Department of Family Practice, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.


RELATED ARTICLES

Relapse of Depression in Primary Care: Rate and Clinical Predictors
Elizabeth H. B. Lin, Wayne J. Katon, Michael VonKorff, Joan E. Russo, Greg E. Simon, Terry M. Bush, Carolyn M. Rutter, Edward A. Walker, and Evette Ludman
Arch Fam Med. 1998;7(5):443-449.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Managing Our Depressed Patients: Gold Standards vs Higher Standards
Marian R. Block
Arch Fam Med. 1998;7(5):462-464.
FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

The overdiagnosis of depression in non-depressed patients in primary care
Aragones et al.
Fam Pract 2006;23:363-368.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Should we screen for depression?
Gilbody et al.
BMJ 2006;332:1027-1030.
FULL TEXT  

Exploration of DSM-IV Criteria in Primary Care Patients With Medically Unexplained Symptoms
Smith et al.
Psychosom. Med. 2005;67:123-129.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

General Practitioner Recognition of Mental Illness in the Absence of a 'Gold Standard'
The Mental Health and General Practice Investigati et al.
Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2004;38:789-794.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Challenge of Depression in Late Life: Bridging Science and Service in Primary Care
Gallo and Coyne
JAMA 2000;284:1570-1572.
FULL TEXT  

The Role of Competing Demands in the Treatment Provided Primary Care Patients With Major Depression
Rost et al.
Arch Fam Med 2000;9:150-154.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Comorbidity and Diagnosing Depressive Disorders in Family Practice
van Rijswijk et al.
Arch Fam Med 2000;9:123-124.
FULL TEXT  

Managing Our Depressed Patients: Gold Standards vs Higher Standards
Block
Arch Fam Med 1998;7:462-464.
FULL TEXT  




HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | PHYSICIAN JOBS | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1998 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.

DCSIMG