Reviewgold2008

Screening and case-finding instruments for depression: a meta-analysis

Simon M. Gilbody · T. Sheldon · Allan O. House

443 citations0/0 files storedCanadian Medical Association Journal

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Mental Health Treatment and Access Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes Treatment of Major Depression

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Screening and case-finding has been proposed as a simple, quick and cheap method to improve the quality of care for depression. We sought to establish the effectiveness of screening in improving the recognition of depression, the management of depression and the outcomes of patients with depression. METHODS: We performed a Cochrane systematic review of randomized controlled trials conducted in nonmental health settings that included case-finding or screening instruments for depression. We conducted a meta-analysis and explored heterogeneity using meta-regression techniques. RESULTS: Sixteen studies with 7576 patients met our inclusion criteria. We found that the use of screening or case-finding instruments were associated with a modest increase in the recognition of depression by clinicians (relative risk [RR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02 to 1.59). Questionnaires, when administered to all patients and the results given to clinicians irrespective of baseline score, had no impact on recognition (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.24). Screening or case finding increased the use of any intervention by a relative risk of 1.30 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.76). There was no evidence of influence on the prescription of antidepressant medications (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.66). Seven studies provided data on outcomes of depression, and no evidence of an effect was found (standardized mean difference -0.02, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.20). INTERPRETATION: If used alone, case-finding or screening questionnaires for depression appear to have little or no impact on the detection and management of depression by clinicians. Recommendations to adopt screening strategies using standardized questionnaires without organizational enhancements are not justified.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 443 citations exist upstream.

References

2003Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses 1986Meta-analysis in clinical trials 2008Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 2020Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 1995Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials 1988A user's guide to the General Health Questionnaire 2000A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta-analysis 2006Collaborative Care for Depression

Cited by

2016The relationship between mobile phone location sensor data and depressive symptom severity 2011Homicide and Suicide During the Perinatal Period 2011Best Practice Elements of Multilevel Suicide Prevention Strategies 2016Identifying depression with the PHQ-2: A diagnostic meta-analysis 2021Deep learning for depression recognition with audiovisual cues: A review 2013Recommendations on screening for depression in adults

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.