RESUMEN
Background: Case finding for low mood is essential in primary care, but it is time-consuming using current depression inventories. The Burns Depression Scale Today (BDST) is a short, simple inventory which assesses mood for today, and we aimed to validate it in this study. Materials and Methods: Consecutive patients with emotional distress seen in a single primary care clinic by one of the authors over 22 months were eligible for this retrospective audit (N = 160). Multiple visits (N = 421) from the same patient were included in the study. The index test was BDST, which assesses the patient's mood for today. The reference standard was the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), which assesses mood over the past 2 weeks. PHQ-9 had a cut-off point of ≥10 and BDST had a cut-off point of ≥6 for a significant mood issue. Results: The median age of patients was 35 years, and 63% of the cohort were women. The median BDST score was 8, indicative of moderately low mood, and the median PHQ-9 score was 15, indicative of moderately severe depression. For patients with a BDST score ≥6, the likelihood ratio of a positive test was 2.67. The sensitivity was 85% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 89%-96%) and the specificity was 68% (95% CI: 60%-76%). The area under the curve was 84% (95% CI: 80%-87%). Conclusion: This audit validates BDST against PHQ-9 and finds it an excellent case-finding tool compared to PHQ-9. This is the first validation study of BDST.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Patients with depression need to be diagnosed and managed effectively in primary care. However, current inventories for case-finding low mood are time-consuming when considering the limited time available during appointments. AIM: To validate the diagnostic accuracy of a single question on the emotional quality of life (Emoqol-100) as a measure of depression in symptomatic patients. DESIGN & SETTING: A retrospective clinical audit, validating the Emoqol-100 compared with the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and Burns Depression Scale Today (BDST) in South Auckland, New Zealand. METHOD: Consecutive patients with suspected low mood, seen over 22 months in a single primary care clinic by one of the authors, were eligible for this retrospective audit (n = 160). The index test was the verbally asked Emoqol-100: 'How is your emotional quality of life now, with 100 being perfect and 0 being the worst imaginable?' The reference standard was the PHQ-9 (n = 426 visits) with a cut-off point of ≥10 or BDST (n = 513 visits) with a cut-off point of ≥6. RESULTS: The Emoqol-100 range 0-20 had a likelihood ratio (LR) of 25.2 for low mood compared with the BDST as the reference standard; and for Emoqol-100 scores of 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, and 81-100 the LRs were 3.6, 1.7, 0.35, and 0.09, respectively. For the PHQ-9, these were 10.1, 2.9, 1.3, 0.40, and 0.2, respectively. Any score ≤60 was associated with a low mood. CONCLUSION: The Emoqol-100 appears to have high validity, so when it is low (≤60), it is suggestive of a high PHQ-9 or BDST score, and a mood issue probably exists. Emoqol-100 could be helpful for busy primary care professionals and other clinicians.
