Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Quantifying point prevalence of major depressive episode using lifetime structured diagnostic interviews.
J Affect Disord. 2010 Feb; 121(1-2):39-44.JA

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Estimates of the prevalence of mental disorders are vital for policy and practice. The aim of the current study was to compare estimates of point (30-day) prevalence of major depressive episode (MDE) derived from a lifetime diagnostic interview with estimates derived from an interview exclusively focussing on the 30 days prior to interview.

METHODS

Study design consisted of face-to-face survey interviews using two separate versions (lifetime and current) of the depression module of the World Mental Health Survey Initiative version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (WMH-CIDI). The setting was an outpatient tertiary referral centre for the treatment of anxiety and depressive disorders. One hundred and sixty four people were randomly allocated to receive either the lifetime or current version of the WMH-CIDI. Point prevalent cases derived from the lifetime interview were compared to point prevalent cases comprehensively assessed by the current interview.

RESULTS

The risk of being diagnosed with current MDE having been interviewed with a lifetime interview was higher, but not significantly higher, than the risk of being diagnosed with current MDE having been interviewed with a current interview (RR=1.29, 95% CI: 0.82-2.03). Derived and comprehensive point prevalent cases were similar with regard to a range of depression-related clinical characteristics.

LIMITATIONS

The size of the sample precluded the ability to determine the equivalence of prevalence estimates. The observed relationships may be different in general community samples.

CONCLUSIONS

Point prevalence of MDE derived from a lifetime diagnostic interview may be slightly higher than that derived from a comprehensive current interview. However, point prevalent cases, regardless of how they are derived, are similar with regard to depression-related clinical characteristics.

Authors+Show Affiliations

National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia. tims@unsw.edu.auNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

19467561

Citation

Slade, Tim, and Matthew Sunderland. "Quantifying Point Prevalence of Major Depressive Episode Using Lifetime Structured Diagnostic Interviews." Journal of Affective Disorders, vol. 121, no. 1-2, 2010, pp. 39-44.
Slade T, Sunderland M. Quantifying point prevalence of major depressive episode using lifetime structured diagnostic interviews. J Affect Disord. 2010;121(1-2):39-44.
Slade, T., & Sunderland, M. (2010). Quantifying point prevalence of major depressive episode using lifetime structured diagnostic interviews. Journal of Affective Disorders, 121(1-2), 39-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2009.05.011
Slade T, Sunderland M. Quantifying Point Prevalence of Major Depressive Episode Using Lifetime Structured Diagnostic Interviews. J Affect Disord. 2010;121(1-2):39-44. PubMed PMID: 19467561.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Quantifying point prevalence of major depressive episode using lifetime structured diagnostic interviews. AU - Slade,Tim, AU - Sunderland,Matthew, Y1 - 2009/05/24/ PY - 2009/04/22/received PY - 2009/05/14/revised PY - 2009/05/14/accepted PY - 2009/5/27/entrez PY - 2009/5/27/pubmed PY - 2010/4/15/medline SP - 39 EP - 44 JF - Journal of affective disorders JO - J Affect Disord VL - 121 IS - 1-2 N2 - BACKGROUND: Estimates of the prevalence of mental disorders are vital for policy and practice. The aim of the current study was to compare estimates of point (30-day) prevalence of major depressive episode (MDE) derived from a lifetime diagnostic interview with estimates derived from an interview exclusively focussing on the 30 days prior to interview. METHODS: Study design consisted of face-to-face survey interviews using two separate versions (lifetime and current) of the depression module of the World Mental Health Survey Initiative version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (WMH-CIDI). The setting was an outpatient tertiary referral centre for the treatment of anxiety and depressive disorders. One hundred and sixty four people were randomly allocated to receive either the lifetime or current version of the WMH-CIDI. Point prevalent cases derived from the lifetime interview were compared to point prevalent cases comprehensively assessed by the current interview. RESULTS: The risk of being diagnosed with current MDE having been interviewed with a lifetime interview was higher, but not significantly higher, than the risk of being diagnosed with current MDE having been interviewed with a current interview (RR=1.29, 95% CI: 0.82-2.03). Derived and comprehensive point prevalent cases were similar with regard to a range of depression-related clinical characteristics. LIMITATIONS: The size of the sample precluded the ability to determine the equivalence of prevalence estimates. The observed relationships may be different in general community samples. CONCLUSIONS: Point prevalence of MDE derived from a lifetime diagnostic interview may be slightly higher than that derived from a comprehensive current interview. However, point prevalent cases, regardless of how they are derived, are similar with regard to depression-related clinical characteristics. SN - 1573-2517 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/19467561/Quantifying_point_prevalence_of_major_depressive_episode_using_lifetime_structured_diagnostic_interviews_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -