Patients' view on screening for depression in general practice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In general practice, depression is often not recognized. As treatment of depression is effective, screening has been proposed as one solution to combat this 'hidden morbidity'. The results of screening programmes for depression, however, are inconsistent and most studies do not show a positive effect on patient outcomes. Patients do not always accept this diagnosis and hence do not receive proper treatment. Nothing is known about the tendency of those patients who screen positive for depression to accept treatment for their 'disclosed' disorder. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to better understand the views of patients who screened positive in a screening programme for depression. METHODS: We performed a qualitative study with semi-structured in-depth interviews with 17 patients. These adult patients (nine females), all suffering from major depressive disorder, were disclosed by a screening programme for depression performed within 11 Dutch general practices. The transcripts were independently analysed by two researchers using MAXqda2. RESULTS: All patients appreciated the active way in which they were approached for screening. Fifteen of the 17 patients recognized the depressive symptoms but nine of them did not accept the diagnosis. The first explanation for resistance to the diagnosis of depression is fear of stigmatization and scepticism about the usefulness of labelling. Secondly, patients experienced their depressive symptoms as a normal and transitory reaction to adversity. Thirdly, patients had doubts about the necessity and effectiveness of treatment. Depressive symptoms, such as feelings of guilt, self-depreciation and fatigue, hamper help-seeking behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that some patients with undisclosed depression, who took the trouble of going through a complete screening programme, felt aversion to being diagnosed as having depression. In the context of screening for depression, we recommend that the patients' view on depression be elicited before diagnosing and offering treatment.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it