Psychiatric screening tools in asthma and their barriers to clinical utilization: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic airway diseases such as asthma are often associated with psychiatric disorders like anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which occur 1.5-2.4 times more frequently in individuals with asthma. Despite this, these conditions are under-recognized. Various questionnaire-based screening tools exist for identifying these psychiatric conditions. This systematic review examines existing screening tools for asthma-related psychiatric conditions, evaluating their efficacy, effectiveness, and cost, with the goal of implementing them more broadly in clinical practice. DATA SOURCES: A search was performed using the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, CINAHL, and Web of Science for all relevant studies published before July 25, 2024. Costs for clinical use and copyright/open access status were assessed through internet searches and/or direct communication. Original validation studies of the screening tools were also reviewed. STUDY SELECTION: A total of 23 studies were included for analysis. Eligible studies focused on screening anxiety disorders, depressive disorders and/or PTSD in individuals with asthma. RESULTS: Eight psychiatric screening tools were identified, each validated and effective in screening for their respective anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, and PTSD. These tools effectively screen for psychiatric disorders, including in undiagnosed populations. Three are available at no cost for clinical use, while five require a fee. CONCLUSIONS: Considering multiple factors such as ease of administration, effectiveness, and cost, we recommend a combination of PHQ-9, GAD-7, and PCL-5 as screening tools for psychiatric comorbidity in primary care and specialty clinics managing adult asthma. Two of these tools are available in EMRs within Alberta.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".