Clinical reappraisal of the composite international diagnostic interview version 3.3 in Qatar's National Mental Health Study

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research Pub Date : 2024-05-10 DOI:10.1002/mpr.2013
Salma M. Khaled, Iman Amro, Menatalla Abdelkader, Dalia Al Bahari, Mahmoud Al Shawwaf, Majid Alabdulla, Ahmed Alhassan, Amal Ali, Sheeren Aly, Asmaa Amin, Wai Tat Chiu, James Currie, Hana El Fakki, Michael B. First, Mohammed H. O. Hassan, Zainab Hijawi, Rumaisa Mohammed, Marwa Nofal, Salma Salman, Nancy A. Sampson, Peter W. Woodruff, Ronald C. Kessler
{"title":"Clinical reappraisal of the composite international diagnostic interview version 3.3 in Qatar's National Mental Health Study","authors":"Salma M. Khaled,&nbsp;Iman Amro,&nbsp;Menatalla Abdelkader,&nbsp;Dalia Al Bahari,&nbsp;Mahmoud Al Shawwaf,&nbsp;Majid Alabdulla,&nbsp;Ahmed Alhassan,&nbsp;Amal Ali,&nbsp;Sheeren Aly,&nbsp;Asmaa Amin,&nbsp;Wai Tat Chiu,&nbsp;James Currie,&nbsp;Hana El Fakki,&nbsp;Michael B. First,&nbsp;Mohammed H. O. Hassan,&nbsp;Zainab Hijawi,&nbsp;Rumaisa Mohammed,&nbsp;Marwa Nofal,&nbsp;Salma Salman,&nbsp;Nancy A. Sampson,&nbsp;Peter W. Woodruff,&nbsp;Ronald C. Kessler","doi":"10.1002/mpr.2013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>Lifetime DSM-5 diagnoses generated by the lay-administered Composite International Diagnostic Interview for DSM-5 (CIDI) in the World Mental Health Qatar (WMHQ) study were compared to diagnoses based on blinded clinician-administered reappraisal interviews.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Telephone follow-up interviews used the non-patient edition of the Structured Clinician Interview for DSM-5 (SCID) oversampling respondents who screened positive for five diagnoses in the CIDI: major depressive episode, mania/hypomania, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Concordance was also examined for a diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder based on a short-form versus full version of the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Initial CIDI prevalence estimates differed significantly from the SCID for most diagnoses (<span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <msubsup>\n <mi>χ</mi>\n <mn>1</mn>\n <mn>2</mn>\n </msubsup>\n </mrow>\n <annotation> ${\\chi }_{1}^{2}$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> = 6.6–31.4, <i>p</i> = 0.010 &lt; 0.001), but recalibration reduced most of these differences and led to consistent increases in individual-level concordance (AU-ROC) from 0.53–0.76 to 0.67–0.81. Recalibration of the short-form PCL-5 removed an initially significant difference in PTSD prevalence with the full PCL-5 (from <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <msubsup>\n <mi>χ</mi>\n <mn>1</mn>\n <mn>2</mn>\n </msubsup>\n </mrow>\n <annotation> ${\\chi }_{1}^{2}$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> = 610.5, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001 to <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <msubsup>\n <mi>χ</mi>\n <mn>1</mn>\n <mn>2</mn>\n </msubsup>\n </mrow>\n <annotation> ${\\chi }_{1}^{2}$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> = 2.5, <i>p</i> = 0.110) while also increasing AU-ROC from 0.76 to 0.81.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Recalibration resulted in valid diagnoses of common mental disorders in the Qatar National Mental Health Survey, but with inflated prevalence estimates for some disorders that need to be considered when interpreting results.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50310,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research","volume":"33 S1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/mpr.2013","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mpr.2013","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

Lifetime DSM-5 diagnoses generated by the lay-administered Composite International Diagnostic Interview for DSM-5 (CIDI) in the World Mental Health Qatar (WMHQ) study were compared to diagnoses based on blinded clinician-administered reappraisal interviews.

Methods

Telephone follow-up interviews used the non-patient edition of the Structured Clinician Interview for DSM-5 (SCID) oversampling respondents who screened positive for five diagnoses in the CIDI: major depressive episode, mania/hypomania, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Concordance was also examined for a diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder based on a short-form versus full version of the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5).

Results

Initial CIDI prevalence estimates differed significantly from the SCID for most diagnoses ( χ 1 2 ${\chi }_{1}^{2}$  = 6.6–31.4, p = 0.010 < 0.001), but recalibration reduced most of these differences and led to consistent increases in individual-level concordance (AU-ROC) from 0.53–0.76 to 0.67–0.81. Recalibration of the short-form PCL-5 removed an initially significant difference in PTSD prevalence with the full PCL-5 (from χ 1 2 ${\chi }_{1}^{2}$  = 610.5, p < 0.001 to χ 1 2 ${\chi }_{1}^{2}$  = 2.5, p = 0.110) while also increasing AU-ROC from 0.76 to 0.81.

Conclusions

Recalibration resulted in valid diagnoses of common mental disorders in the Qatar National Mental Health Survey, but with inflated prevalence estimates for some disorders that need to be considered when interpreting results.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
卡塔尔国家心理健康研究对 3.3 版国际综合诊断访谈的临床再评估。
目的:将世界心理健康卡塔尔(WMHQ)研究中由非专业人员主持的DSM-5综合国际诊断访谈(CIDI)得出的DSM-5终生诊断结果与由临床医生主持的盲法再评估访谈得出的诊断结果进行比较:电话随访使用了非患者版的 DSM-5 临床医师结构化访谈(SCID),对在 CIDI 中筛查出五项诊断阳性的受访者进行了过度取样,这五项诊断是:重度抑郁发作、躁狂/狂躁症、恐慌症、广泛性焦虑症和强迫症。此外,还根据 DSM-5 创伤后应激障碍核对表(PCL-5)的简短版与完整版,对创伤后应激障碍诊断的一致性进行了检查:在大多数诊断中,CIDI 最初的患病率估计值与 SCID 有显著差异 ( χ 1 2 ${chi }_{1}^{2}$ = 6.6-31.4, p = 0.010 χ 1 2 ${\chi }_{1}^{2}$ = 610.5,p χ 1 2 ${\chi }_{1}^{2}$ = 2.5,p = 0.110),同时也将 AU-ROC 从 0.76 提高到 0.81:重新校准后,卡塔尔全国心理健康调查中常见精神障碍的诊断结果是有效的,但某些精神障碍的患病率估计值被夸大了,在解释结果时需要加以考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
6.50%
发文量
48
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research (MPR) publishes high-standard original research of a technical, methodological, experimental and clinical nature, contributing to the theory, methodology, practice and evaluation of mental and behavioural disorders. The journal targets in particular detailed methodological and design papers from major national and international multicentre studies. There is a close working relationship with the US National Institute of Mental Health, the World Health Organisation (WHO) Diagnostic Instruments Committees, as well as several other European and international organisations. MPR aims to publish rapidly articles of highest methodological quality in such areas as epidemiology, biostatistics, generics, psychopharmacology, psychology and the neurosciences. Articles informing about innovative and critical methodological, statistical and clinical issues, including nosology, can be submitted as regular papers and brief reports. Reviews are only occasionally accepted. MPR seeks to monitor, discuss, influence and improve the standards of mental health and behavioral neuroscience research by providing a platform for rapid publication of outstanding contributions. As a quarterly journal MPR is a major source of information and ideas and is an important medium for students, clinicians and researchers in psychiatry, clinical psychology, epidemiology and the allied disciplines in the mental health field.
期刊最新文献
Introducing the “IJMPR Didactic Papers” Network analysis: An overview for mental health research Are there subgroup differences in the accuracy of ‘screening’ questions for mood and anxiety disorder diagnostic interviews? A prediction model for differential resilience to the effects of combat-related stressors in US army soldiers A control theoretic approach to evaluate and inform ecological momentary interventions
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1