Undetected depression in primary healthcare: Occurrence, severity and co-morbidity in a two-stage procedure of opportunistic screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Louise Lotfia, Lena Flyckt*b, Ingvar Krakaua, Björn Mårtenssonb & Gunnar H. Nilssonaa Department of Neurobiology, Care Science and Society, Centre for Family and Community Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Swedenb Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Division of Psychiatry, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, SwedenLena Flyckt, Research and Development section, Northern Stockholm Psychiatry, 11281 Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail: lena.flyckt@sll.seBackground: Depression often remains undetected in primary healthcare, and a two-stage screening procedure has been recommended for future research on the recognition, management and outcome of these patients. The aim of this study was to analyse the occurrence and the severity of depression, as well as gender, age and psychiatric co-morbidity in patients with previously undetected depression using a screening questionnaire followed by a diagnostic interview for detecting depression among patients visiting primary healthcare. Methods: All patients visiting a primary healthcare centre during a period of 10 days were asked to fill in the self-rating version of the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale. Patients with a score of 12 or more were invited to participate in a structured diagnostic interview based on the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders. Results: Out of 221 (=N) participants, 45 (20.4%) patients showed signs of depression (scores of 12 or more). Of these 45 patients, 31 consented to the structured interview, and of those, 28 (12.7%) fulfilled the criteria for depression, 17 (7.7%) had a major depression and 11 (5.0%) had a mixed depression–anxiety condition. Conclusions: The rate of undetected depression in primary healthcare was considerable. The majority of these patients had a major depression. Psychiatric co-morbidity among depressed patients was almost universal. The two-stage procedure of opportunistic screening with the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale and the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders seems to be a feasible method for detecting these patients in primary healthcare.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".