Neurologists' Assessment of Mental Comorbidity in Patients With Vertigo and Dizziness in Routine Clinical Care-Comparison With a Structured Clinical Interview.

Background: Mental health comorbidities are frequent in patients with vertigo and dizziness. The current study was conducted in a specialized interdisciplinary university center for vertigo and dizziness. Clinical routines consist of a structured work-up in which neuro-otological and neurological tests are performed to first detect possible organic vestibular deficits. In addition, psychiatric disorders and comorbidities are considered. The study aimed to evaluate neurologists' awareness of psychiatric next to somatic disorders within patients' first examination in terms of diagnostic congruence between neurologists' diagnoses and structured clinical assessment of mental disorders. Methods: The study involved 392 patients. Diagnostic evaluation included (a) structured history-taking (including psychosocial anamnesis), neurological, and neuro-otological diagnostics conducted by neurologists and (b) a structured clinical interview for mental disorders (SCID-I) conducted by psychologists and final-year medical or psychology students. Cohen's Kappa was calculated to determine agreement rates regarding depression and anxiety disorders; additionally, sensitivity and specificity were evaluated. Results: Neurologists' assessments led to at least one psychiatric diagnosis among the main diagnoses in 40 (10.2 %) patients, whereas the structured clinical interview led to at least one DSM-IV psychiatric diagnosis in 174 (44.4%) of the patients. Agreement was low (κ < 0.2); sensitivity was low (15%) but specificity was high (98%). Conclusions: Agreement between the diagnosis of neurologists and structured clinical interviews for psychiatric disorders is low. Since psychiatric disorders are frequent in vertigo and dizziness and tend to take a chronic course, improving early recognition and implementing appropriate care concepts is vital.

[Review Model for the Assessment of Psychometric Instruments--Recommendations of the German College of Psychosomatic Medicine (DKPM)]. / Kriterienkatalog zur Beurteilung psychodiagnostischer Selbstbeurteilungsinstrumente--Empfehlung des Deutschen Kollegiums für Psychosomatische Medizin (DKPM).

OBJECTIVES: Psychometric instruments are commonly applied in psychotherapeutic research and care for the baseline assessment of symptoms, the planning of therapeutic interventions, the assessment of the longitudinal course of symptoms and outcomes of therapeutic interventions as well as quality management of care. Psychometric properties as well as economic aspects should be considered in the selection of specific instruments. It is assumed that users of psychometric instruments face a great variety of instruments and related information. For that reason, it seems challenging to absorb the current knowledge and to integrate it into clinical practice and research. Thus, it is likely that well-known, established and easily accessible instruments are commonly used, while new developed instruments might not be disseminated in research and healthcare. METHODS: Based on available international review models, the working group "Psychometrics and Psychodiagnostics" of the German College of Psychosomatic Medicine (DKPM) has developed and tested a review model specifically tailored for psychotherapeutic research and care. RESULTS: The different steps of development, as well as the final review model based on the consensus of the working group are presented. The review model contains 6 generic terms (reliability, validity, objectivity, reference groups and aspects of application) with 21 different criteria to be assessed with 0-3 asterisks (*). The criteria are clearly operationalized and the practical use of the review model is explained and discussed. CONCLUSIONS: With the review model for the assessment of psychometric instruments a well-defined evaluation system is made available for research and clinical practice which has been developed by an expert group. The review model facilitates systematic, transparent and comparative evaluation of psychometric instruments along clearly defined criteria. It also supports the selection of psychometric instruments in research and care. Next, the working group aims at disseminating and implementing the review model as well as the application and publication of reviews for different psychometric instruments based on the review model.

Economic evaluation of brief psychodynamic interpersonal therapy in patients with multisomatoform disorder.

BACKGROUND: A brief psychodynamic interpersonal therapy (PIT) in patients with multisomatoform disorder has been recently shown to improve health-related quality of life. AIMS: To assess cost-effectiveness of PIT compared to enhanced medical care in patients with multisomatoform disorder. METHOD: An economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial (International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN23215121) conducted in 6 German academic outpatient centres was performed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated from the statutory health insurance perspective on the basis of quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained at 12 months. Uncertainty surrounding the cost-effectiveness of PIT was presented by means of a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. RESULTS: Based on the complete-case analysis ICER was 41840 Euro per QALY. The results did not change greatly with the use of multiple imputation (ICER = 44222) and last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach to missing data (ICER = 46663). The probability of PIT being cost-effective exceeded 50% for thresholds of willingness to pay over 35 thousand Euros per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness of PIT is highly uncertain for thresholds of willingness to pay under 35 thousand Euros per QALY.