A clinical predictive score for mood disorder risk in low-income primary care settings.

BACKGROUND: Despite availability of validated screening tests for mood disorders, busy general practitioners (GPs) often lack the time to use them routinely. This study aimed to develop a simplified clinical predictive score to help screen for presence of current mood disorder in low-income primary care settings. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, 197 patients seen at 10 primary care centers in Santiago, Chile completed self-administered screening tools for mood disorders: the Patient Health questionnaire (PHQ-9) and the Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ). To determine participants' current-point mood disorder status, trained clinicians applied a gold-standard diagnostic interview (SCID-I). A simplified clinical predictive model (CM) was developed based on clinical features and selected questions from the screening tools. Using CM, a clinical predictive score (PS) was developed. Full PHQ-9 and GP assessment were compared with PS. RESULTS: Using multivariate logistic regression, clinical and demographic variables predictive of current mood disorder were identified for a simplified 8-point predictive score (PS). PS had better discrimination than GP assessment (auROC-statistic=0.80 [95% CI 0.72, 0.85] vs. 0.58 [95% CI 0.52, 0.62] p-value <0.0001), but not as good as the full PHQ-9 (0.89 [95% CI 0.85, 0.93], p-value=0.03). Compared with GP assessment, PS increased sensitivity by 50% at a fixed specificity of 90%. Administered in a typical primary care clinical population, it correctly predicted almost 80% of cases. LIMITATIONS: Further research must verify external validity of the PS. CONCLUSION: An easily administered clinical predictive score determined, with reasonable accuracy, the current risk of mood disorders in low-income primary care settings.

Affective temperaments in clinical practice: a validation study in mood disorders.

BACKGROUND: We sought to examine correlations between clinical validators and temperaments in clinical practice. METHODS: We provided the self-report TEMPS-A (50 item long) to 123 consecutive patients seen in the Mood Disorders Program of Tufts Medical Center. Temperament was assessed as cyclothymia, dysthymia, irritable or hyperthymia. Cut-offs were tested using (50%) and (75%) thresholds of affirmative responses, as well as highest percent for dominant temperament. We reported no dominant temperament at 75% cut-off . Multivariate regression modeling was conducted to assess confounding bias. RESULTS: Using clinical and demographic validators, cyclothymia was the most strongly validated temperament, followed by dysthymia and hyperthymia. Irritable temperament did not appear to be valid in this sample. A 75% item endorsement cut-off appeared to identify clinically important temperaments in slightly less than half of this sample. Those without any temperament at 75% cut-off had better prognostic features. 50% cut-off was highly nonspecific, and poorly correlated with diagnostic validators. CONCLUSIONS: Affective temperaments correlate with clinical validators, most robustly for cyclothymia. 75% cut-off on the TEMPS may provide a useful categorical definition of abnormal affective temperaments in mood disorders. With that definition, slightly less than one-half of patients with mood disorders have affective temperaments. Those without abnormal affective temperaments have better prognostic features.