A brief case-finding questionnaire for common mental disorders: The CMDQ

156Citations
Citations of this article
106Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objectives. The aim of the study was to validate a new case-finding instrument for common mental disorders (CMDQ). Methods. A cross-sectional, stratified, two-phase study was carried out in 28 general practices in Aarhus County, Denmark. 1785 consecutive patients, 18-65 years old, consulting 38 GPs with a new health problem participated. Patients were screened before consultation using a one-page screening questionnaire including subscales for somatisation (SCL-SOM and Whiteley-7), anxiety (SCL-ANX4), depression (SCL-DEP6) and alcohol abuse (CAGE). A stratified subsample of 701 patients was interviewed using the Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry (SCAN) interview. We tested the external validity of the scales using the SCAN interview as gold standard. All data were analysed using appropriate weighted procedures to control for the two-phase sampling design and non-response bias. Results. Estimates of sensitivity and specificity for relevant ICD-10 diagnoses at theoretical optimal cut-off points on subscales: Depressive disorder: 78/86 (SCL-DEP6); Alcohol abuse or dependence: 78/97 (CAGE); Severe anxiety disorder: 77/85 (SCL-ANX4); Somatisation disorder: 83/56 (SCL-SOM); and 75/52 (Whiteley-7); any mental disorder: 72/72 (SCL-8). At the theoretical optimal cut-off points the CMDQ demonstrated higher diagnostic accuracy than GPs on any diagnosis evaluated. Conclusion. The study results suggest that the CMDQ has excellent external validity for use as a diagnostic aid in primary care settings. © The Author (2005). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Christensen, K. S., Fink, P., Toft, T., Frostholm, L., Ørnbøl, E., & Olesen, F. (2005). A brief case-finding questionnaire for common mental disorders: The CMDQ. Family Practice, 22(4), 448–457. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmi025

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free