The Use of Online Consultation Systems or Remote Consulting in England Characterized Through the Primary Care Health Records of 53 Million People in the OpenSAFELY Platform: Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The National Health Service (NHS) Long Term Plan, published in 2019, committed to ensuring that every patient in England has the right to digital-first primary care by 2023-2024. The COVID-19 pandemic and infection prevention and control measures accelerated work by the NHS to enable and stimulate the use of online consultation (OC) systems across all practices for improved access to primary care. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore general practice coding activity associated with the use of OC systems in terms of trends, COVID-19 effect, variation, and quality. METHODS: With the approval of NHS England, the OpenSAFELY platform was used to query and analyze the in situ electronic health records of suppliers The Phoenix Partnership (TPP) and Egton Medical Information Systems, covering >53 million patients in >6400 practices, mainly in 2019-2020. Systematized Medical Nomenclature for Medicine-Clinical Terminology (SNOMED-CT) codes relevant to OC systems and written OCs were identified including eConsultation. Events were described by volumes and population rates, practice coverage, and trends before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Variation was characterized among practices, by sociodemographics, and by clinical history of long-term conditions. RESULTS: Overall, 3,550,762 relevant coding events were found in practices using TPP, with the code eConsultation detected in 84.56% (2157/2551) of practices. Activity related to digital forms of interaction increased rapidly from March 2020, the onset of the pandemic; namely, in the second half of 2020, >9 monthly eConsultation coding events per 1000 registered population were registered compared to <1 a year prior. However, we found large variations among regions and practices: December 2020 saw the median practice have 0.9 coded instances per 1000 population compared to at least 36 for the highest decile of practices. On sociodemographics, the TPP cohort with OC instances, when compared (univariate analysis) to the cohort with general practitioner consultations, was more predominantly female (661,235/1,087,919, 60.78% vs 9,172,833/17,166,765, 53.43%), aged 18 to 40 years (349,162/1,080,589, 32.31% vs 4,295,711/17,000,942, 25.27%), White (730,389/1,087,919, 67.14% vs 10,887,858/17,166,765, 63.42%), and less deprived (167,889/1,068,887, 15.71% vs 3,376,403/16,867,074, 20.02%). Looking at the eConsultation code through multivariate analysis, it was more commonly recorded among patients with a history of asthma (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.131, 95% CI 1.124-1.137), depression (aOR 1.144, 95% CI 1.138-1.151), or atrial fibrillation (aOR 1.119, 95% CI 1.099-1.139) when compared to other patients with general practitioner consultations, adjusted for long-term conditions, age, and gender. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully queried general practice coding activity relevant to the use of OC systems, showing increased adoption and key areas of variation during the pandemic at both sociodemographic and clinical levels. The work can be expanded to support monitoring of coding quality and underlying activity. This study suggests that large-scale impact evaluation studies can be implemented within the OpenSAFELY platform, namely looking at patient outcomes.

Quality, Accuracy, and Bias in ChatGPT-Based Summarization of Medical Abstracts.

PURPOSE: Worldwide clinical knowledge is expanding rapidly, but physicians have sparse time to review scientific literature. Large language models (eg, Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer [ChatGPT]), might help summarize and prioritize research articles to review. However, large language models sometimes "hallucinate" incorrect information. METHODS: We evaluated ChatGPT's ability to summarize 140 peer-reviewed abstracts from 14 journals. Physicians rated the quality, accuracy, and bias of the ChatGPT summaries. We also compared human ratings of relevance to various areas of medicine to ChatGPT relevance ratings. RESULTS: ChatGPT produced summaries that were 70% shorter (mean abstract length of 2,438 characters decreased to 739 characters). Summaries were nevertheless rated as high quality (median score 90, interquartile range [IQR] 87.0-92.5; scale 0-100), high accuracy (median 92.5, IQR 89.0-95.0), and low bias (median 0, IQR 0-7.5). Serious inaccuracies and hallucinations were uncommon. Classification of the relevance of entire journals to various fields of medicine closely mirrored physician classifications (nonlinear standard error of the regression [SER] 8.6 on a scale of 0-100). However, relevance classification for individual articles was much more modest (SER 22.3). CONCLUSIONS: Summaries generated by ChatGPT were 70% shorter than mean abstract length and were characterized by high quality, high accuracy, and low bias. Conversely, ChatGPT had modest ability to classify the relevance of articles to medical specialties. We suggest that ChatGPT can help family physicians accelerate review of the scientific literature and have developed software (pyJournalWatch) to support this application. Life-critical medical decisions should remain based on full, critical, and thoughtful evaluation of the full text of research articles in context with clinical guidelines.

Family practice research in the African region 2020-2022.

BACKGROUND:  The African region produces a small proportion of all health research, including primary health care research. The SCOPUS database only lists the African Journal of Primary Health Care Family Medicine (PHCFM) and the South African Family Practice Journal (SAFP) in the field of family practice. AIM:  To review the nature of all original research (2020-2022) published in PHCFM and SAFP. SETTING:  African region. METHOD:  All 327 articles were included. Data were extracted into REDCap, using a standardised tool and exported to the Statistical Package for Social Sciences. RESULTS:  The median number of authors was 3 (interquartile range [IQR]: 2-4) and institutions and disciplines 1 (IQR: 1-2). Most authors were from South Africa (79.8%) and family medicine (45.3%) or public health (34.2%). Research focused on integrated health services (76.1%) and was mostly clinical (66.1%) or service delivery (37.9%). Clinical research addressed infectious diseases (23.4%), non-communicable diseases (24.6%) and maternal and women's health (19.4%). Service delivery research addressed the core functions of primary care (35.8%), particularly person-centredness and comprehensiveness. Research targeted adults and older adults (77.0%) as well as health promotion or disease prevention (38.5%) and treatment (30.9%). Almost all research was descriptive (73.7%), mostly surveys. CONCLUSION:  Future research should include community empowerment and multisectoral action. Within integrated health services, some areas need more attention, for example, children, palliative and rehabilitative care, continuity and coordination. Capacity building and support should enable larger, less-descriptive and more collaborative interdisciplinary studies with authors outside of South Africa.Contribution: The results highlight the strengths and weaknesses of family practice research in Africa.

Education for primary health care in Africa.

No abstract available.

Primary Care's Challenges and Responses in the Face of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Insights From AHRQ's Learning Community.

The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically disrupted health care systems and delivery in the United States. Despite emotional, psychological, logistical, and financial stress, primary care clinicians responded to the challenges that COVID-19 presented and continued to provide essential health services to their communities. As the lead federal agency for primary care research, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) identified a need to engage and support primary care in responding to COVID-19. AHRQ initiated a learning community from December 2020-November 2021 to connect professionals and organizations that support primary care practices and clinicians. The learning community provided a forum for participants to share learning and peer support, better understand the stressors and challenges confronting practices, ascertain needs, and identify promising solutions in response to the pandemic. We identified challenges, responses, and innovations that emerged through learning community engagement, information sharing, and dialog. We categorized these across 5 domains that reflect core areas integral to primary care delivery: patient-centeredness, clinician and practice, systems and infrastructure, and community and public health; health equity was crosscutting across all domains. The engagement of the community to identify real-time response and innovation in the context of a global pandemic has provided valuable insights to inform future research and policy, improve primary care delivery, and ensure that the community is better prepared to respond and contribute to ongoing and future health challenges.

A Randomized Controlled Trial to Increase Cancer Screening and Reduce Depression Among Low-Income Women.

Low-income women of color receive fewer cancer screenings and have higher rates of depression, which can interfere with cancer screening participation. This study assessed the comparative effectiveness of two interventions for improving colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screening participation and reducing depression among underserved women in Bronx, NY, with depression. This comparative effectiveness randomized controlled trial (RCT) with assessments at study entry, 6, and 12 months utilized an intent-to-treat statistical approach. Eligible women were aged 50 to 64, screened positive for depression, and were overdue for ≥ 1 cancer screening (colorectal, breast, and/or cervical). Participants were randomized to a collaborative depression care plus cancer screening intervention (CCI + PCM) or cancer screening intervention alone (PCM). Interventions were telephone-based, available in English or Spanish, delivered over 12 months, and facilitated by a skilled care manager. Cancer screening data were extracted from electronic health records. Depression was measured with a validated self-report instrument (PHQ-9). Seven hundred fifty seven women consented and were randomized (CCI + PCM, n = 378; PCM, n = 379). Analyses revealed statistically significant increases in up-to-date status for all three cancer screenings; depression improved in both intervention groups. There were no statistically significant differences between the interventions in improving cancer screening rates or reducing depression. CCI and PCM both improved breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening and depression in clinical settings in underserved communities; however, neither intervention showed an advantage in outcomes. Decisions about which approach to implement may depend on the nature of the practice and alignment of the interventions with other ongoing priorities and resources.

Key Learnings from Running an Extension Study to a Real-World Effectiveness Trial: The Extended Salford Lung Study.

INTRODUCTION: The Salford Lung Studies (SLS) were real-world randomised controlled trials set within UK primary care that assessed the effectiveness and safety of initiating once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol versus continuing usual care in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma. Data were collected for a relatively short period, limiting the study of long-term outcomes. To broaden the capture of SLS patients' data, we undertook the Extended SLS (Ext-SLS), aiming to better understand the patient disease journey and the effects of treatment in a real-world setting, through collection of patient-level data. Here, we present study design information and the challenges and learnings gathered in creating the Ext-SLS. METHODS: The Ext-SLS was intended to augment the SLS by collecting retrospective and prospective (up to 10 years from consent) primary and secondary care electronic health record (EHR) data and patient questionnaires. After ethics approval, general practitioners (GPs) obtained consent from SLS patients remotely (mean 3.2 years post-SLS completion). To facilitate GPs identifying eligible patients, a novel EHR-based approach flagged SLS patients who were alive and registered with their original GP. An automated system sent consent forms/questionnaires to patients. Medical data were collected via EHRs; primary care data were extracted from GPs' systems whilst secondary care data were sourced from the UK NHS. RESULTS: Of the 75 GP sites from the SLS, 35 (47%) declined Ext-SLS participation leaving 4158 potentially eligible patients; 1169 (28%) patients were excluded as GPs could not confirm them as SLS participants or due to incapacity. Of 2989 patients invited, 1189 (40%) consented. CONCLUSIONS: Developing an EHR-based trial extension was achieved, with reasonable consent rates amongst invited patients. The resulting Ext-SLS is a unique and valuable research resource. Leveraging EHRs and technology reduced GP burden, facilitating participation. Initiation of extension studies prior to study close-out may help increase GP and patient participation.

Understanding what people think and feel about adult vaccinations and the associated barriers in Greece: Development and validation of the attitude towards adult vaccination (ATAVAC) scale.

Despite the unequivocal value of vaccination in reducing the global burden of infectious diseases, the anti-vaccination movement thrives. The vast majority of the existing validated tools explore attitudes regarding vaccination in children. The aim of our study was to develop and validate a scale assessing attitudes towards adult immunisation. This national cross-sectional study included adult healthcare users who visited 23 Greek Primary Healthcare Units. The development of the scale was the result of literature review, semi-structured interviews and pilot testing of its preliminary versions. The initial version contained 15 items measuring respondents' attitudes on a 6-point Likert scale. The sample was randomly split into two halves. Exploratory factor analysis, performed in the first sample, was used for the creation of multi-item scales; confirmatory factor analysis was used in the second sample to assess goodness of fit. Moreover, concurrent validity, internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability and ceiling and floor effects were explored. The total sample consisted of 1,571 individuals. Overall 'Cronbach's alpha' (0.821) indicated good internal consistency. The initial exploratory factor analysis resulted in a three-factor model. The subsequent confirmatory factor analysis indicated that an 11-item version of the scale provided the best fit of the model to the data (RMSEA = 0.050, SRMR = 0.053, TLI = 0.937, CFI = 0.955, AIC = 24,999.949). All subscales ('value of adult vaccination', 'safety concerns' and 'perceived barriers') demonstrated strong concurrent associations with participants' attitudes and behaviour regarding vaccination (p < .001). No ceiling or floor effects were noted for any of the subscales (0.13%, 2.61% and 0.51%; 0.13%, 0.57% and 0.45% respectively). The 11-item ATAVAC scale proved to be a reliable and valid tool, suitable for assessing attitudes towards adult vaccination.

Methods of connecting primary care patients with community-based physical activity opportunities: A realist scoping review.

Deemed a global public health problem by the World Health Organization, physical inactivity is estimated to be responsible for one in six deaths in the United Kingdom (UK) and to cost the nation's economy £7.4 billion per year. A response to the problem receiving increasing attention is connecting primary care patients with community-based physical activity opportunities. We aimed to explore what is known about the effectiveness of different methods of connecting primary care patients with community-based physical activity opportunities in the United Kingdom by answering three research questions: 1) What methods of connection from primary care to community-based physical activity opportunities have been evaluated?; 2) What processes of physical activity promotion incorporating such methods of connection are (or are not) effective or acceptable, for whom, to what extent and under what circumstances; 3) How and why are (or are not) those processes effective or acceptable? We conducted a realist scoping review in which we searched Cochrane, Medline, PsycNET, Google Advanced Search, National Health Service (NHS) Evidence and NHS Health Scotland from inception until August 2020. We identified that five methods of connection from primary care to community-based physical activity opportunities had been evaluated. These were embedded in 15 processes of physical activity promotion, involving patient identification and behaviour change strategy delivery, as well as connection. In the contexts in which they were implemented, four of those processes had strong positive findings, three had moderately positive findings and eight had negative findings. The underlying theories of change were highly supported for three processes, supported to an extent for four and refuted for eight processes. Comparisons of the processes and their theories of change revealed several indications helpful for future development of effective processes. Our review also highlighted the limited evidence base in the area and the resulting need for well-designed theory-based evaluations.

Patients' engagement in primary care research: a case study in a Canadian context.

Patient engagement in primary care research is an increasingly common requirement, as it helps make research more relevant to patients and therefore more valuable. However, there is limited evidence about the outcomes on engagement and actually how it affects research. In Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research has a Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR), which in 2016 funded Ontario's INSPIRE-PHC centre of excellence and its Patient Engagement Resource Centre (PERC). PERC conducted an online survey of the three INSPIRE-PHC studies that engaged patients to guide their research. We found that patient partners (PPs) were positive about their experience during research meetings, the value of collaboration, and the support that was provided. They were more involved in early stages of their research projects than in ongoing research activities. PPs valued their experience and also felt they had improved the research process and outcomes. This case study showed how PPs perceive their roles, but a more diverse group of PPs might have more differences in their experience. Background Patient engagement in primary care research is increasing and is now an expectation in many countries and funding agencies. In Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) has mandated that patients be included as partners to guide the research process. Ontario's Patient Engagement Resource Centre (PERC) was established in 2016 by the INNOVATIONS STRENGTHENING PRIMARY HEALTH CARE THROUGH RESEARCH (INSPIRE-PHC), one of 12 centres of excellence in the province funded under the CIHR's Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) initiative. PERC's mission is to support the authentic engagement of patients in primary care research. The present case study examines patients' experience of engagement in INSPIRE-PHC research studies. Methods PERC conducted a web-based evaluation survey across the three INSPIRE-PHC studies that engaged patient partners (PPs). We used data collection tools developed by McMaster University (the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET)) and the Patient-Centred Outcomes Research Institute (Ways of Engaging- ENgagement ACtivity Tool (WE-ENACT)) to assess patient experience and areas of involvement. These included both closed- and open-ended questions. Results The quantitative data showed that PPs were positive about their experience during research meetings, the value of collaboration, and the support that was provided to facilitate engagement. Most of them were highly involved in the initial stages of their research projects but much less involved in operational activities. The qualitative findings showed that, overall, PPs valued their experience, felt prepared to contribute and that their contributions were welcomed. In particular, they considered that they had improved the research process and outcomes. The majority also reported that they had learned from the experience and found it valuable. Conclusions This case study shows that patients engaged in three primary care research studies found the experience to be positive and felt that they had contributed to the research. This study adds to the literature on the evaluation of patient engagement in primary health care research. However, a study of a more diverse sample of PPs might elucidate differences in experience that could enrich future patient engagement activities.

Establishing family physician research networks in South Africa.

Practice-based research networks have been an important strategy in many parts of the world to enable primary care research and involve clinicians. The Stellenbosch University Family Physician Research Network (SUFPREN) was established in 2017 to enable family physicians in clinical practice to engage with practical research that addressed key challenges and enhanced clinical governance. It is a collaboration between academic family physicians at the university and clinical family physicians in the district health services. In this article, the establishment of SUFPREN is described - membership of the network, selection of research questions, roles in the research process, communication and coordination, involvement of the Department of Health, types of questions and methods, data management, dissemination of findings and funding. The initial work of SUFPREN is described and a vision for future family physician research networks in South Africa is defined.

Public involvement and engagement in primary and emergency care research: the story from PRIME Centre Wales.

BACKGROUND: Policy throughout the United Kingdom promotes involvement of patients and public members in research to benefit patient care and health outcomes. PRIME Centre Wales is a national research centre, developing and coordinating research about primary and emergency care which forms 90% of health service encounters. In this paper, we describe our approach to public involvement and engagement in PRIME Centre Wales (hereafter called PRIME), in particular: how this approach has developed; ways in which public members contribute to PRIME activity; the strengths and limitations of our approach, challenges and future opportunities. PRIME ensures work is relevant to service users, carers, the public and policy makers by incorporating comprehensive patient and public involvement in every phase of our work. APPROACH: PRIME has policies and processes to enable and promote successful public involvement and engagement across research activities. This ensures public perspectives and patient experiences are integrated throughout research development, implementation and dissemination and in managing and delivering PRIME strategy over a 10 year timescale. A public/patient group called SUPER is a key resource providing wide-ranging perspectives via email and face-to-face discussion. We collect information on processes and experiences to assess value and impact, to guide ongoing involvement and engagement. A funded post provides leadership and support to staff and to public/patient contributors to facilitate collaborations. DISCUSSION: A stable, well-resourced structure has provided the timescales to build strong relationships and embed diverse approaches to public involvement and engagement within PRIME. Researchers and public contributors have committed to collaborations, developed knowledge and skills and sustained relationships. Effective approaches incorporate values and actions which, when operating together, strengthen processes and outcomes of public involvement and engagement. CONCLUSION: Supportive context, motivation and time are necessary to foster values and practices that enable effective public involvement and engagement. PRIME has embedded public involvement and engagement across research activities and structures. Central is the public/patient group SUPER offering experience-based expertise to add value to the research cycle. This innovative model, aligned with best practice, enhances relevance and quality of primary and emergency care research to benefit patients and the general population.

Working in partnership with communities to improve health and research outcomes. Comparisons and commonalities between the UK and South Africa.

Community and public participation and involvement is an underpinning principle of primary health care, an essential component of a social justice-orientated approach to health care and a vehicle to improving health outcomes for patients, public and communities. However, influenced by history and context, there are intrinsic issues surrounding power imbalance and other barriers to partnerships between communities, public, policy makers and researchers. It is important to acknowledge these issues, and through doing so share experiences and learn from those working within very different settings.In South Africa, community participation is seen as a route to decolonisation. It is also integral to the core functions of South African Higher Education Institutes, alongside teaching and research. In the UK, there has also been a history of participation and involvement as part of a social rights movement, but notably public involvement has become embedded in publicly funded health research as a policy imperative.In this paper, we draw on our respective programmes of work in public and community participation and involvement. These include a South African community engagement project to reduce teenage pregnancy and HIV infection working through a partnership between teachers, students and university academics, and a national evaluation in England of public involvement in applied health research. We begin by highlighting the lack of clarity and terms used interchangeably to describe participation, engagement and involvement. Frameworks for partnership working with relevance to South Africa and the UK are then analysed, suggesting key themes of relationships, working together, and evaluation and monitoring. The South African project and examples of public involvement in English primary and community care research are examined through these themes. We conclude the paper by mapping out common enablers and barriers to partnership working within these very different contexts.

The extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement in primary care research: a mixed methods study.

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY: In the UK, more patients go to primary care than other parts of the health service. Therefore it is important for research into primary care to include the insights and views of people who receive these services. To explore the extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement (PPI) in primary care research, we examined documents of 200 projects and surveyed 191 researchers.We found that about half of studies included PPI to develop research ideas and during the study itself. Common activities included designing study materials, advising on methods, and managing the research. Some studies did not undertake the PPI activities initially planned and funded for. PPI varied by study design, health condition and study population. We found pockets of good practice: having a PPI budget, supporting PPI contributors, and PPI informing recruitment issues. However, good practice was lacking in other areas. Few projects offered PPI contributors training, used PPI to develop information for participants about study progress and included PPI to advise on publishing findings.Researchers reported beneficial impacts of PPI. Most impact was reported when the approach to PPI included more indicators of good practice. The main cost of PPI for researchers was their time. Many reported difficulties providing information about PPI.In partnership with PPI contributors, we have used these findings to develop:a new Cost and Consequences Framework for PPI highlighting financial and non-financial costs, benefits and harms of PPIFifteen co-produced recommendations to improve the practice and delivery of PPI. ABSTRACT: Background: To improve the lives of patients in primary care requires the involvement of service users in primary care research. We aimed to explore the extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement (PPI) in primary care research.Methods: We extracted information about PPI from grant applications, reports and an electronic survey of researchers of studies funded by the NIHR School for Primary Care Research (SPCR). We applied recognised quality indicators to assess the quality of PPI and assessed its impact on research.Results: We examined 200 grant applications and reports of 181 projects. PPI was evident in the development of 47 (24%) grant applications. 113 (57%) grant applications included plans for PPI during the study, mostly in study design, oversight, and dissemination. PPI during projects was reported for 83 (46%) projects, including designing study materials and managing the research. We identified inconsistencies between planned and reported PPI. PPI varied by study design, health condition and study population.Of 46 (24%) of 191 questionnaires completed, 15 reported PPI activity. Several projects showed best practice according to guidelines, in terms of having a PPI budget, supporting PPI contributors, and PPI informing recruitment issues. However few projects offered PPI contributors training, used PPI to develop information for participants about study progress, and had PPI in advising on dissemination.Beneficial impacts of PPI in designing studies and writing participant information was frequently reported. Less impact was reported on developing funding applications, managing or carrying out the research. The main cost of PPI for researchers was their time. Many researchers found it difficult to provide information about PPI activities.Our findings informed:a new Cost and Consequences Framework for PPI in primary care research highlighting financial and non-financial costs, plus the benefits and harms of PPIFifteen co-produced recommendations to improve PPI in research and within the SPCR.Conclusions: The extent, quality and impact of PPI in primary care research is inconsistent across research design and topics. Pockets of good practice were identified making a positive impact on research. The new Cost and Consequences Framework may help others assess the impact of PPI.

Creating a Centralized Infrastructure to Facilitate Medical Education Research.

PURPOSE: Building research capacity and increasing scholarly productivity are identified needs of the specialty of family medicine. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) has increased the scholarly requirements for residency programs, placing even more pressure on faculty to be productive in the scholarly realm. The Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance (CERA) was created by volunteer members of the specialty with shared interests in overcoming barriers and increasing scholarly production. METHODS: CERA has developed the infrastructure and expertise to regularly conduct omnibus surveys of key family medicine educational leaders. Proposals are centrally collected and competitively chosen. The omnibus survey process includes collaboration with experienced mentors, centralized institutional review board clearance, pilot testing, and centralized data collection. The survey results are disseminated back to research teams for presentation and publication of the findings. RESULTS: To date, over 115 research teams have had their projects included in CERA omnibus surveys. Projects have been led by research teams from across the country and with a wide variety of research experience. This collaborative work has resulted in more than 75 scientific presentations and over 55 peer-reviewed papers in the medical literature. The raw data are now available online and serve as a repository for future secondary analysis and as an educational resource. CONCLUSIONS: The CERA infrastructure has allowed a large number of research teams to conduct meaningful scholarship at a fraction of the typical cost in terms of time and energy. CERA has expanded family medicine research by removing barriers for teams with limited experience or resources.

Which DSM validated tools for diagnosing depression are usable in primary care research? A systematic literature review.

INTRODUCTION: Depression occurs frequently in primary care. Its broad clinical variability makes it difficult to diagnose. This makes it essential that family practitioner (FP) researchers have validated tools to minimize bias in studies of everyday practice. Which tools validated against psychiatric examination, according to the major depression criteria of DSM-IV or 5, can be used for research purposes? METHOD: An international FP team conducted a systematic review using the following databases: Pubmed, Cochrane and Embase, from 2000/01/01 to 2015/10/01. RESULTS: The three databases search identified 770 abstracts: 546 abstracts were analyzed after duplicates had been removed (224 duplicates); 50 of the validity studies were eligible and 4 studies were included. In 4 studies, the following tools were found: GDS-5, GDS-15, GDS-30, CESD-R, HADS, PSC-51 and HSCL-25. Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Predictive Value, Negative Predictive Value were collected. The Youden index was calculated. DISCUSSION: Using efficiency data alone to compare these studies could be misleading. Additional reliability, reproducibility and ergonomic data will be essential for making comparisons. CONCLUSION: This study selected seven tools, usable in primary care research, for the diagnosis of depression. In order to define the best tools in terms of efficiency, reproducibility, reliability and ergonomics for research in primary care, and for care itself, further research will be essential.