Dataset Information

Identifying Mental Disorders in Primary Care: Diagnostic Accuracy of the Connected Mind Fast Check (CMFC) Electronic Screen.

ABSTRACT: Primary care physicians (PCPs) often daily address diagnoses and treatment of mental disorders in their practices. The current study examined the Connected Mind Fast Check (CMFC), a two-tiered electronic screen, assessing six common mental disorders. The eight-item Initial Screen assesses possible symptoms, whereas SAM modules establish provisional diagnoses and areas of clinical concern. With 234 patients from five independent PCP offices, diagnostic accuracy was tested with the SCID-5-RV as the external criterion. Concerningly, many patients were unaware of their current mental disorders and comorbidities. The CMFC Initial Screen evidenced strong sensitivity, identifying with very few missing diagnoses. About two-thirds of provisional SAM diagnoses were confirmed with high specificities. Bipolar Disorder posed the most challenges at both tiers. Importantly, the suicide screen identified all patients with suicide plans and three-fourths with ideation. In general, the CMFC effectively identified provisional diagnoses, impairment, and potential suicidality.

SUBMITTER: Rogers R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8491449 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Identifying Mental Disorders in Primary Care: Diagnostic Accuracy of the Connected Mind Fast Check (CMFC) Electronic Screen.

Rogers Richard R Hartigan Sara E SE Sanders Courtney E CE

Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings 20211005 4

Primary care physicians (PCPs) often daily address diagnoses and treatment of mental disorders in their practices. The current study examined the Connected Mind Fast Check (CMFC), a two-tiered electronic screen, assessing six common mental disorders. The eight-item Initial Screen assesses possible symptoms, whereas SAM modules establish provisional diagnoses and areas of clinical concern. With 234 patients from five independent PCP offices, diagnostic accuracy was tested with the SCID-5-RV as th ...[more]

PMID: 34609692

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportancePosttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a serious mental health disorder that can be effectively treated with empirically based practices. PTSD screening is essential for identifying undetected cases and providing patients with appropriate care.ObjectiveTo determine whether the Primary Care PTSD screen for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) (PC-PTSD-5) is a diagnostically accurate and acceptable measure for use in Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care clinics.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional, diagnostic accuracy study enrolled participants from May 19, 2017, to September 26, 2018. Participants were recruited from primary care clinics across 2 VA Medical Centers. Session 1 was conducted in person, and session 2 was completed within 30 days via telephone. A consecutive sample of 1594 veterans, aged 18 years or older, who were scheduled for a primary care visit was recruited. Data analysis was performed from March 2019 to August 2020.ExposuresIn session 1, participants completed a battery of questionnaires. In session 2, a research assistant administered the PC-PTSD-5 to participants, and then a clinician assessor blind to PC-PTSD-5 results conducted a structured diagnostic interview for PTSD.Main outcomes and measuresThe range of PC-PTSD-5 cut points overall and across gender was assessed, and diagnostic performance was evaluated by calculating weighted κ values.ResultsIn total, 495 of 1594 veterans (31%) participated, and 396 completed all measures and were included in the analyses. Participants were demographically similar to the VA primary care population (mean [SD] age, 61.4 [15.5] years; age range, 21-93 years) and were predominantly male (333 participants [84.1%]) and White (296 of 394 participants [75.1%]). The PC-PTSD-5 had high levels of diagnostic accuracy for the overall sample (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC], 0.927; 95% CI, 0.896-0.959), men (AUC, 0.932; 95% CI, 0.894-0.969), and women (AUC, 0.899, 95% CI, 0.824-0.974). A cut point of 4 ideally balanced false negatives and false positives for the overall sample and for men. However, for women, this cut point resulted in high numbers of false negatives (6 veterans [33.3%]). A cut point of 3 fit better for women, despite increasing the number of false positives. Participants rated the PC-PTSD-5 as highly acceptable.Conclusions and relevanceThe PC-PTSD-5 is an accurate and acceptable screening tool for use in VA primary care settings. Because performance parameters will change according to sample, clinicians should consider sample characteristics and screening purposes when selecting a cut point.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study directly compared the accuracy of two audiometry-based tests for screening school children for hearing impairment: the currently used test, pure tone screen and a device newly applied to children, HearCheck Screener.DesignTwo-gate case-control diagnostic test accuracy study.Setting and participantsHearing impaired children ('intended cases') aged 4-6 years were recruited between February 2013 and August 2014 from collaborating audiology services. Children with no previously identified impairment ('intended controls') were recruited from Foundation and Year 1 of schools between February 2013 and June 2014 in central England. The reference standard was pure tone audiometry. Tests were administered at Nottingham Hearing Biomedical Research Unit or, for some intended cases only, in the participant's home.Main outcome measuresSensitivity and specificity of the pure tone screen and HearCheck tests based on pure tone audiometry result as reference standard.Results315 children (630 ears) were recruited; 75 from audiology services and 240 from schools. Full test and reference standard data were obtained for 600 ears; 155 ears were classified as truly impaired and 445 as truly hearing based on the pure tone audiometry assessment. Sensitivity was estimated to be 94.2% (95% CI 89.0% to 97.0%) for pure tone screen and 89.0% (95% CI 82.9% to 93.1%) for HearCheck (difference=5.2% favouring pure tone screen; 95% CI 0.2% to 10.1%; p=0.02). Estimates for specificity were 82.2% (95% CI 77.7% to 86.0%) for pure tone screen and 86.5% (95% CI 82.5% to 89.8%) for HearCheck (difference=4.3% favouring HearCheck; 95% CI0.4% to 8.2%; p=0.02).ConclusionPure tone screen was better than HearCheck with respect to sensitivity but inferior with respect to specificity. As avoiding missed cases is arguably of greater importance for school entry screening, pure tone screen is probably preferable in this context.Study registration numberCurrent controlled trials: ISRCTN61668996.

Project description:BackgroundEarly detection of cognitive impairment is among the top research priorities aimed at reducing the global burden of dementia. Currently used screening tools have high sensitivity but lack specificity at their original cut-off, while decreasing the cut-off was repeatedly shown to improve specificity, but at the cost of lower sensitivity. In 2012, a new screening tool was introduced that aims to overcome these limitations - the Quick mild cognitive impairment screen (Qmci). The original English Qmci has been rigorously validated and demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy with both good sensitivity and specificity. We aimed to determine the optimal cut-off value for the German Qmci, and evaluate its diagnostic accuracy, reliability (internal consistency) and construct validity.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed data from healthy older adults (HOA; n = 43) and individuals who have a clinical diagnosis of 'mild neurocognitive disorder' (mNCD; n = 37) with a biomarker supported characterization of the etiology of mNCD of three studies of the 'Brain-IT' project. Using Youden's Index, we calculated the optimal cut-off score to distinguish between HOA and mNCD. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to evaluate diagnostic accuracy based on the area under the curve (AUC). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. Reliability (internal consistency) was analyzed by calculating Cronbach's α. Construct validity was assessed by analyzing convergent validity between Qmci-G subdomain scores and reference assessments measuring the same neurocognitive domain.ResultsThe optimal cut-off score for the Qmci-G was ≤ 67 (AUC = 0.96). This provided a sensitivity of 91.9% and a specificity of 90.7%. The PPV and NPV were 89.5% and 92.9%, respectively. Cronbach's α of the Qmci-G was 0.71 (CI95% [0.65 to 0.78]). The Qmci-G demonstrated good construct validity for subtests measuring learning and memory. Subtests that measure executive functioning and/or visuo-spatial skills showed mixed findings and/or did not correlate as strongly as expected with reference assessments.ConclusionOur findings corroborate the existing evidence of the Qmci's good diagnostic accuracy, reliability, and construct validity. Additionally, the Qmci shows potential in resolving the limitations of commonly used screening tools, such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. To verify these findings for the Qmci-G, testing in clinical environments and/or primary health care and direct comparisons with standard screening tools utilized in these settings are warranted.

Dataset Information

Identifying Mental Disorders in Primary Care: Diagnostic Accuracy of the Connected Mind Fast Check (CMFC) Electronic Screen.

Publications

Identifying Mental Disorders in Primary Care: Diagnostic Accuracy of the Connected Mind Fast Check (CMFC) Electronic Screen.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets