Vargas TBE, Villamil SV, Rodríguez EC, Pérez RJ, Cortés SJ

Language: Spanish
References: 44
Page: 323-331
PDF size: 141.15 Kb.

ABSTRACT

According to studies conducted in different countries, it is estimated that approximately 30% to 50% of people with mental health problems are not recognized by the general practitioner. Given this situation, it has been proposed that the practitioner at the primary care services must play a decisive role in the early detection of cases by establishing a definitive diagnostic and a timely treatment. Several organizations have pointed out that one of the first actions that need to be implemented to fulfill the aims in the care of people with mental disorders is to prepare the first-contact doctors and to have a brief, low cost, self-applied, valid and reliable scale. The studies mention that using screening tests at the primary care level is crucial for the success of the programs. The detection and recognition of psychiatric symptomatology rates vary depending on the type of scale applied. The tools that have been widely used are the Goldberg’s General Health Questionnaire (GHQ), Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale, Beck Depression Inventory, the Depression Symptom Checklist (DS 20), the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (SCL), the Hamilton Depression Scale, the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), the self-administered computerized assessment (PROQSY), the criteria of the 3rd revised edition of the Diagnostical and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III-R), the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID), and the criteria of the Symptom Driven Diagnostic System for Primary Care (SDDS-PC), among others. The preliminary results confirm the existence of a high percentage of possible psychiatric cases (46.9%), but only 4% of cases are referral. The low capability of the general practitioner at the primary care level in detecting these pathologies has been confirmed as well. These scales have been applied in different scenarios and to different types of population. Although the dominating criteria for choosing the tool are sensitivity and specificity, some authors mention that strategies for adequately handling cases, such as the confirmation of the diagnosis and followup of the patients, are required once the treatment has started. In this paper, we present the psychometric characteristics of the Kessler (K-10) scale in detecting depression and anxiety disorders in the primary care.
Material and methods: The study is a methodological process that aims to validate the Kessler Psychological Distress scale (K-10). It was conducted in two health care centers of primary care level in Mexico City. The subjects were 280 individuals who requested attention at the mentioned centers and to whom the K-10 test was applied after giving their informed consent. Later on, the computerized version of the International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), which uses the diagnostic criteria of the DSM-IV, was applied to the subjects in order to confirm the diagnostics for depression and anxiety. The MINI is a version adapted to Latin American Spanish by the National Institute of Psychiatry Ramon de la Fuente Muñiz. The diagnostic accuracy was processed following the MINI diagnoses for depression and anxiety closely, and the scores on the scale K-10 as a predictor. The sensitivity and specificity were calculated for all possible cut points in order to establish the optimal cut off point. The efficiency and maximum likelihood ratios were also calculated. The area under the ROC curve as well as the probability quotients, positive and negative (LR+ and LR-), were also calculated.
The K-10 is a brief screening tool that can be easily applied by the primary care personnel which measures the psychological distress of a person during the four weeks prior to the application. It consists of ten questions with Likert-like answers that range from 1 to 5 and are categorized in a five level ordinal scale: Always, Very Often, Sometimes, Rarely, Never; where «Never» has an assigned value of 1, and «Always» has assigned value of 5. It has a minimum score of 10 and a maximum of 50. The ranges of the instrument are four levels: low (10-15), moderate (16-21), high (22-29) and very high (30-50). The instrument showed an internal consistency of 0.90 and it has been used in various population studies promoted by the World Health Organization as well as government organizations in Australia, Spain, Colombia and Peru.
Results: Out of 280 individuals to whom the tool was applied, 78.9% (221) were female and 21.1% (59) male. These values represent the proportion of patients attending the primary care services (95% confidence interval=±5.4%).
The mean age of women was 39 years, and the mean age of men was 41. The 70.6% of the women manifested more psychological distress than men (52.5%)[χ²(1)=6.05,p=0.014. No other sociodemographic variable showed significant differences.
The instrument is highly precise, it can detect up to 87% of depression cases, and 82.4% of anxiety cases. The scale was compared with the MINI and it presented a prevalence of 26.8% and 10.6%, respectively. Of the total of depression cases, 26.4% also presented anxiety; these represent a co-morbidity of 5.4%. The construct validity presented one factor alone that explains the 53.4% of the total variance, this is why the scale is considered as onedimensional. In other words, the scale only measures the construct of the psychological distress. The internal consistency was α=0.901.
Once the sensitivity and specificity for all cut off points had been determined using the MINI as a golden rule, it was observed that the cut off point for maximum sensitivity and specificity corresponded to 21 for the diagnosis of depression, and 22 for anxiety.
Conclusions: The K-10 is a good instrument for the detection of depression and anxiety cases at the primary care level which meets the criteria of validity and reliability. However, given that only one diagnosis was considered for all the range of anxiety disorders, the scale must be chosen carefully for all the other disorders that are not included in this paper. The use of the instrument is recommended for the general practitioners at the primary care level, mainly for diagnosing depression.
Various studies in which other screening instruments have been used for the detection of depressive disorder at primary care point out that any screening method are useful in making the diagnosis. By using these instruments, the depression diagnosis at primary care level increases from 10% to 47%. The latter supports the fact that the selection of a good instrument turns out to be effective in detection, treatment and clinical outcomes of the entity.
Since this recommendation is only one of the activities required in primary care level for good handling of detected cases, it is noteworthy to mention that a comprehensive care model that encompasses both the detection as well as the pharmacological and psychosocial treatments is required.

REFERENCES

1. Araya R, Rojas G, Fritsch R. Treating depression in primary care in low income women in Santiago, Chile: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2003;361:995-1000.

2. Borges G, Wang PS, Medina-Mora ME, Lara C et al. Delay of first treatment of mental and substance use disorders in Mexico. Am J Public Health 2007;97(9):1638-1643.

3. Bower P, Gask L. The changing nature of consultation-liaison in primary care: bridging the gap between research and practice. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2002;24:63-70.

4. Bower P, Gilbody S. Managing common mental health disorders in primary care: conceptual models and evidence base. BMJ 2005;330:839-842.

5. Biderman A, Yeheskel A, Tandeter H, Umansky R. Advantages of the psychiatric liaison-attachment scheme in a family medicine clinic. Isr J Psychiatry Relat Sci 1999;36:115–121.

6. Caraveo J, Medina-Mora ME, Tapia R, Rascón ML et al. Trastornos psiquiátricos en niños de la República Mexicana. Resultados de una encuesta de hogares. INPRFM (ed.). Anales. Reseña de la VII Reunión de Investigación; 1992; pp. 56-62.

7. Fava G, Park S, Dubovsky S. Centros de salud mental: un nuevo modelo. World Psychiatry (ed. Español) 2008;6(3):49-53.

8. Gask L, Sibbald B, Creed F. Evaluating models of working at the interface between mental health services and primary care. British Journal of Psychiatry 1997;170:6-11.

9. Gilbody S, House A, Sheldon T. Routinely administered questionnaires for depression and anxiety: a systematic review. British Medical J 2001;322:406-409.

10. Moré M, Jiménez M, Muñoz P, Muñoz de Morales A et al. Estudio preliminar dirigido a la construcción de un cuestionario de derivación de la atención primaria a los servicios de salud mental. Actas Esp Psiquiatría 2008;36(4):2010-2217.

11. Organización Mundial de la Salud. Prevención de los trastornos mentales. Intervenciones efectivas y opiniones políticas. Génova: Reporte; 2004.

12. Ortiz A, González R, Rodríguez F. La derivación a salud mental de pacientes sin un trastorno psíquico diagnosticable. Atención Primaria 2006;38(10):563-569.

13. Sartorius N. Mental health and primary health Care. Mental Health Family Medicine 2008;5:75-77.

14. World Health Organization y World Family Doctors Family Carrying for People (WONCA). Integrating mental health into primary are. Génova: A Global Perspective; 2008.

15. Gilbody S. Sheldon T. House A. Screening and case-finding instruments for depression: a meta-analysis. Canadian Medical Association Licensors 2008;178(8):997-1003.

16. King V, Stoller K, Hayes M. A multicenter randomized evaluation of methadone medical maintenance. Drug Alcohol Dependence 2002;65:137-148.

17. Bradford F, Chaney E, Rubenstein L, Bonner L et al. Developing effective collaboration between primary care and mental health providers. Primary Care Companion J Clinical Psychiatry 2006;8(1):12-16.

18. Aragonés E. Desacuerdos diagnósticos entre médicos generales y psiquíatras. Atención Primaria 2008;40(12):644.

19. Bodenheimer T, Yoshio B. The team let model of primary care. Annals Family Medicine 2007;5(5):457-461.

20. Cairney J, Scott V, Wade T, Kurdyak P et al. Evaluation of 2 measures of psychological distress as screeners for depression in the general population. Canadian J Psychiatry 2007;52:111-120.

21. Carr VJ, Faehrmann C, Lewin TJ, Walton JM et al. Determining the effect the consultation-liaison psychiatry in primary care has on family physicians’ psychiatric knowledge and practice. Psychosomatics 1997; 38:217-229.

22. U.S. Preventive services task force recommendation statement screening for depression in adults. Annals Internal Medicine 2009;151:784-792.

23. MacMillan H, Petterson C, Wathen C. Screening for depression in primary care: recommendation statement from the Canadian task force on preventive health care. Canadian Medical Association Licensors 2005;172(1):33-35.

24. Pignone P, Gaynes B, Rushton J, Burchell C et al. Screening for depression in adults: A summary of the Evidence for the U.S. preventive services task force. Annals Internal Medicine 2002;136(10):765-776.

25. Bedamgarav E, Weingarten S, Heninig J, Knigth K et al. Eficacia de los programas diagnósticos y terapéuticos de la depresión: una revisión sistemática. Am J Psychiatry 2002;7:127-137.

26. Romero M, Medina-Mora ME. Validez de una versión del cuestionario general de salud, para detectar psicopatología en estudiantes universitarios. Salud Mental 1987;10(3):90-97.

27. Gómez M, Caraveo A. Instrumentos de diagnóstico en la epidemiología psiquiátrica. Salud Mental 1996;19(supl):60-64.

28. Valdez R, Salgado N. Escala breve para identificar malestar emocional en la práctica médica de primer nivel: características psicométricas. Salud Mental 2004; 27(4):55-62.

29. Cruz C, López L, Blas C, González L et al. Datos sobre la validez y confiabilidad de la Symptom Check List 90(SCL90) en una muestra de sujetos mexicanos. Salud Mental 2005;28(1):72-81.

30. Lara C, Espinosa I, Cárdenas M, Fócil M et al. Confiabilidad y validez de la SCL-90 en la evaluación de psicopatología en mujeres. Salud Mental 2005;28(3):42-50.

31. Bojorquez L, Salgado N. Características psicométricas de la Escala Center for Epidemiological Studies-depression (CES-D), versiones de 20 y 10 reactivos, en mujeres de una zona rural mexicana. Salud Mental 2009;32(4):299-307.

32. Kessler R, McGonagle K, Zhao S, Nelson Cet al. Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of DSM III- R psychiatric disorders in the United States: results from the national Co morbidity Survery. Archives General Psychiatry 1994;51:8-19.

33. Kessler R, Andrews G, Cople L, Hiripi E et al. Short screening scales to monitor population prevalence and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychological Medicine 2002;32:959-976.

34. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Information Paper: Use of the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale in ABS Health Surveys. Australia: 2001; p. 14.

35. Furukawa T, Kessler R, Slade T, Andrews G. The performance of the K6 and K10 screening scales for psychological distress in the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-Being. Psychological Medicine 2003;33:357-362.

36. Brenlla ME. Condiciones sociales y características psicológicas: Un estudio en sectores urbanos de la Argentina. Serie Monitoreo de la Deuda Social. Universidad Católica de Argentina. Documento 3; 2005; p. 38. www.scribd.com/doc/8319346.

37. Baillie A. Predictive gender and education bias in Kessler´s psychological distress Scale (K10). Soc Psychiatr Epidemiol 2005;40:743-748.

38. Heinze G, Sheehan D, Cortés J. Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI): Spanish version (South and Central America) 5.0.0. DSM-IV. México, DF: Instituto Nacional de Psiquiatría; 2000.

39. Fernández P, Díaz P. Unidad de Epidemiología Clínica y Bioestadística. Complejo Hospitalario-Universitario Juan Canalejo. A Coruña, España: Cad Aten Primaria; 2003; 10: 120-124. www.fisterra.com/.../pruebas_diagnosticas/pruebas_diagnosticas2.pdf. Revisado el 17 de agosto 2010.

40. Morales P. Medición de actitudes en psicología y educación. Tercera edición revisada. Madrid: Universidad Pontificia Comillas; 2006.

41. Kessler R, Barker P, Colpe L, Epstein J et al. Screening for serious mental illness in the general population. Arch Gen psychiatry 2003;60:184-189.

42. Spies G, Stein D, Roos A, Faure S et al. Validity of the Kessler 10 (K-10) in detecting SSM-IV defined moon and anxiety disorders among pregnant women. Arch Women Ment Health 2009;12:69-74.

43. Valestein M, Sandeep V, Zeber J, Boehm K et al. The cost-utility of screening for Depression in Primary Care. Ann Intern Med 2001;134:345-360.

44. Simon G, Fleck M, Lucas R, Bushnell D. Prevalence and predictors of depression treatment in an international primary care study. Am J Psychiatry 2004;161:169.