0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Investigation |

Clinical Predictors of Mental Disorders Among Medical Outpatients FREE

Jeffrey L. Jackson, MD, MPH; James S. Houston, BS; Steven R. Hanling, BS; Kenneth A. Terhaar, BS; Joon S. Yun, BS
[+] Author Affiliations

From the Department of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md.


Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(6):875-879. doi:10.1001/archinte.161.6.875.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background  Mental disorders are common among primary care patients and often not detected by primary care physicians. We report on clinical cues that may allow physicians to target patients for psychiatric screening.

Methods  Two hundred fifty consecutive adults presenting to a walk-in clinic completed previsit surveys assessing demographics, symptom characteristics, recent stress, functional status (Medical Outcomes Study Short Form–6), and mental disorders (Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders [PRIME-MD]). Patients with positive findings for a mental disorder on the PRIME-MD underwent a semistructured interview. Immediately after the visit, physicians completed the Difficult Doctor Patient Relationship Questionnaire.

Results  Patients averaged 50.5 years of age (range, 18-92 years). Little more than half were women (53%); 43%, white; 44%, African American; 8%, Hispanic; and 6%, other. Twenty-six percent had an underlying mental disorder; 11% had more than 1 mental disorder. Sixteen percent had a depressive disorder; 6%, major depression; 11%, an anxiety disorder; 2%, panic disorder; and 9%, a somatoform disorder. Independent correlates of a mental disorder included reporting recent stress (odds ratio [OR], 6.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.3-13.6), having 5 or more physical symptoms (OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 2.1-7.9), or reporting health to be less than very good (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.1-4.3). There was a stepwise increase in the likelihood of having a mental disorder and number of correlates present. Among patients with no predictors, only 2% had an underlying mental disorder, compared with 72% among patients with all 3 clinical predictors.

Conclusions  Patients who report recent stress, 5 or more physical symptoms, or poor health are more likely to have an underlying mental disorder. These clinical cues may allow clinicians to select patients in whom formal screening for mental disorders would be particularly fruitful.

Figures in this Article

MENTAL DISORDERS are present in up to one third of patients seen in the outpatient setting.18 Despite the availability of a number of case-finding instruments,2,9,10 however, such disorders frequently remain undiagnosed.2,3,11 Screening for mental disorders in all outpatients has not been shown to be cost-effective or feasible. An alternative strategy would be to target patients at higher risk, especially given the time constraints and competing demands of primary care clinicians.12,13

In a previous study of 500 patients presenting to an ambulatory clinic with physical complaints, we discerned the following 4 clinical predictors that significantly increased the likelihood of a depressive or anxiety disorder: recent stress, severity of the presenting symptom, total number of physical symptoms, and poor self-rated health status (S4 model).4 These 4 factors also have been found to predict the presence of a depressive or anxiety disorder among referrals to a rheumatology clinic.14 The S4 model factors often become apparent during the normal course of an interview, and identify a population of patients in whom psychiatric screening may be particularly warranted.

In this study, we sought to examine how well this model behaves in another cohort of primary care walk-in patients, and expanded mental disorders to include somatoform disorders as well as depressive and anxiety disorders.

Consecutive walk-in patients to the Adult Primary Care Clinic at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC, during the month of August 1998 were invited to participate. Enrollment was conducted during all clinic hours and during every clinic, until 250 patients had been enrolled. Only patients with dementia were excluded from the study. Immediately before seeing the physician, all patients completed a questionnaire on symptom severity (0-10 scale) and duration (number of days), previous visits for the symptom (yes or no), worry about serious illness (yes or no), stress in the previous week (yes or no), and presence of common symptom-related expectations.15,16 They also completed the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form–6, a 6-item scale that measures functional status in the following 6 domains: overall health, role function, physical function, social function, emotional health, and physical pain.17 Patients also underwent evaluation for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV)18 depressive and anxiety disorders using the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders (PRIME-MD).2 Patients with positive findings on the Patient Questionnaire portion of the PRIME-MD were interviewed using the Clinician Evaluation Guide to make criteria-based diagnoses of DSM-IV depressive and anxiety disorders. The PRIME-MD has been found to be 86% accurate, compared with evaluation by independent mental health professionals, with an overall sensitivity of 83% and specificity of 88%. For threshold disorders (major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, and panic disorders), the specificity is higher, ranging from 92% to 99%. Our institution's human use committee approved this protocol. The demographics, case-mix, and psychometric properties of patients seen in military settings have previously been shown to be comparable to those in civilian practice.19,20

After each patient visit, physicians completed the 10-item Difficult Doctor Patient Relationship Questionnaire21 to assess clinician-perceived difficulty of the encounter, and indicated whether a subspecialty referral was provided. This questionnaire previously has been shown to be a reliable instrument with an internal consistency of 0.88 to 0.96, with a score of greater than 30 indicating a difficult encounter.22

Statistical analyses were performed using Stata Statistical Software.23 Categorical variables were analyzed using χ2 testing, and continuous variables were assessed using Student t or Kruskal-Wallis testing as appropriate. Our primary outcome variable was the presence of a mental disorder. Variables significant on univariate screen at P<.20 were identified as potential predictive variables and fit into a logistic regression model after the methods of Hosmer and Lemeshow.24 The performance of individual predictors and the overall model were compared with the model's original performance in the derivation set of 500 general medical patients.4

PATIENT CHARACTERISTICS

Two hundred sixty-three consecutive patients were approached, and 250 agreed to participate in our study. No patient was excluded because of a language barrier. Patients averaged 50.5 years in age (range, 18-92 years); 53% were women. Forty-three percent were white, and 44% African American. Patients presented with a variety of symptoms, with more than 1 symptom present 11% of the time. The leading symptom category was musculoskeletal complaints, present in one third of subjects. Pain of some type was reported among 155 patients (62%). Fifty percent had experienced their symptom less than 2 weeks and 69% less than a month.

Nearly all patients (99%) had at least 1 previsit expectation, including a desire for a causal explanation (81%), anticipated time for recovery (65%), medication prescription (66%), diagnostic test (50%), a focused physical examination (48%), or a subspecialty referral (40%). Nearly two thirds (62%) were worried that their symptom might represent a serious illness. Twenty patients (8%) were considered difficult by their clinician.

PREVALENCE OF PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS

A mental disorder was present in 65 (26%) of patients, with 25 (10%) experiencing 2 or more disorders. A depressive disorder was present in 40 (16%); major depression, 15 (6%); anxiety disorders, 26 (10%); panic disorder, 3 (1%); and somatoform disorder, 23 (9%).

There were no differences between patients with and without psychiatric disorders in age, race, marital status, or educational attainment (Table 1). There were also no differences in symptom duration or symptom severity, number or type of previsit expectations, patient worry that the symptom could potentially represent a serious illness, or likelihood that the patient was considered difficult by their clinician. However, patients with psychiatric disorders were more likely to be female (relative risk [RR], 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-2.5), to report recent stress (RR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.8-2.8), and to report a greater number of other somatic symptoms (5.4 vs 2.8; P<.001). Patients with mental disorders also had worse functioning in all 6 domains assessed (Figure 1).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Characteristics of 250 Walk-in Patients Stratified by Psychiatric Status
Place holder to copy figure label and caption

Functional status score by presence of depressive, anxiety, or somatoform disorder. Functional status was measured in 6 domains using the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form–6.17 Five of the domains use 5-point Likert questions scored from 1 to 5, with 5 representing better functioning. Pain is scored on a 6-point scale. The 6 domains of functioning include overall ("In general, would you say your health is excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor," with excellent scored as 5 and poor as 1); physical ("In the past week, to what extent did your health problems limit you in your everyday physical activities? [1-5]"); pain ("How much bodily pain have you had during the past week? [1-6]"); emotion ("During the past week, how much have you been bothered by emotional problems [such as feeling anxious, depressed, or irritable] [1-5]?"); role ("During the past week, how much difficulty did you have doing your daily work, both inside and outside the house, because of your physical health or emotional problems? [1-5]"); and social ("During the past week, to what extent has your physical health or emotional problems interfered with your normal social activities with family, friends, neighbors, or groups? [1-5]"). P<.001 for all comparisons between patients with and without a mental disorder.

Graphic Jump Location
REGRESSION MODELING

Variables that differed between patients with and without mental disorders on univariate screen at P<.20 included age, sex, symptom duration and severity, recent stress, number of somatic symptoms, serious illness worry, and overall health status; these were included in our initial regression model. Variables independently significant in predicting the presence of an underlying mental disorder included recent stress (odds ratio [OR], 6.7; 95% CI, 3.3-13.6), 6 or more somatic symptoms (OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 2.1-7.9), and reporting oneself to have less than very good overall health (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.1-4.3) (Table 2). There was a stepwise increase in the likelihood of a mental disorder with increasing number of predictors; patients with 0, 1, 2, or 3 predictors had a likelihood of a depressive or anxiety disorder of 2%, 19%, 39%, or 72%, respectively. Using regression coefficients, 79% of patients were correctly classified as having or not having a mental disorder. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for different thresholds of the 3-predictor model. A threshold of at least 1, 2, and 3 predictors had a sensitivity for depressive or anxiety disorders of 98%, 74%, and 30%, respectively, and a specificity of 33%, 70%, and 95%, respectively. In other words, 74% of patients with a depressive, anxiety, or somatoform disorder diagnosed by means of the PRIME-MD had 2 or more clinical predictors, whereas 98% of patients without a disorder had 1 or fewer predictors.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Independent Predictors of Depressive or Anxiety Disorders

Mental disorders were present in one fourth of patients presenting to our walk-in clinic. Three of the variables (symptom count, stress, and health status) in the original S4 model predicted patients with underlying depressive, anxiety, and somatoform disorders, validating the results of our previous study.4 In both studies, the strongest predictor of an underlying mental disorder was the presence of recent stress, followed by greater number of physical symptoms. The weakest predictor of an underlying disorder in our previous studies4,14 was patient rating of their presenting symptom severity as greater than 5 (on a visual analog scale of 0 [none] to 10 [unbearable]). In the present study, although patients reporting their symptom severity as greater than 5 (on the same visual analog scale from 1 to 10) were more likely to have a mental disorder (RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.6), this variable was not an independent predictor when included with the other 3 predictors (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.7-2.7). As in our previous studies, there was a stepwise increase in the percentage of patients with mental disorders with increased number of predictors present. Among patients with no clinical predictors, only 2% had an underlying disorder; among those with all 3 predictors, 72% had an underlying mental disorder.

The exact questions in our study were (1) "During the past week, have you been under stress?" and (2) "In general, would you say your health is excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor?" scored as positive for patients answering less than very good. Physical symptom count was measured using the PRIME-MD 15-symptom checklist, with endorsement of 6 or more symptoms considered positive for this model. During clinic encounters, multiple somatic complaints often become apparent early in the interview and might serve as a surrogate for a formal symptom checklist.

A number of barriers to recognizing mental disorders in the busy outpatient setting have been identified, including time, stigmatization, and somatization. Most primary care visits are completed in less than 15 minutes.25 Given the limited time, coupled with an expanded agenda of tasks expected from primary care physicians, case finding in selected patients may be more feasible than screening for mental disorders in every clinic attendee. There are a number of instruments available to make the diagnosis of mental disorders; in this study, we used the PRIME-MD. There are 2 versions of this instrument available, one that involves questions by clinicians based on patient responses to a questionnaire,2 and another that requires clinicians to review patient answers to a questionnaire.26 Both allow rapid diagnoses of the most common mental disorders in primary care, the first averaging 8.4 minutes of clinician time and the second taking less than 3 minutes in 85% of encounters. Patient time to complete either questionnaire is less than 10 minutes.4 Both questionnaires have been found to have a high degree of agreement with diagnoses made by independent mental health professionals (κ, 0.65-0.71; 85%-88% accuracy). Other case-finding instruments for depression have been found to take only 2 to 6 minutes to administer, with equally high accuracy.9 However, management of mental disorders includes more than making the diagnosis. Once identified, further evaluation of the patients' psychosocial environment, ie, deciding whether this is a self-limited situational disorder or one that merits treatment, followed by a discussion about the risks and benefits of various treatment options must occur. There have been no studies assessing how much more time it takes clinicians to manage mental disorders in primary care than other common primary care problems, although several studies have shown that most treatment of mental disorders occurs in primary care settings.27 The burden of mental disorders to patients is enormous. Patients report greater stress, worse functioning in all aspects of their life, and greater worry. Patients with mental disorders consequently have higher utilization rates of health care services. Patients with mental disorders constitute a disproportionate percentage of referrals to gastroenterology,28 rheumatology,29 and neurology clinics.30 Patients seen in these subspecialty settings with underlying mental disorders are significantly less likely to have an underlying gastroenterological, rheumatological, or neurologic cause for their symptoms. Safe, effective treatment for major depression or panic or generalized anxiety disorders is available, and treatment has been found to improve significantly the quality of patients' lives and to reduce their somatic complaints.

The S3 or S4 models are not suggested as substitutes for direct inquiry about items that permit criteria-based diagnosis of depressive, anxiety, or somatoform disorders. Preliminary evidence suggests that simply asking a few questions about depressed mood or anhedonia is quite sensitive (>90%) in screening for depressive disorders,31 although single-item screens for anxiety or somatoform disorders have not been studied. Although not replacing diagnostic questions, S3 items may nonetheless be clinically useful for several reasons. First, if 1 or more of the items spontaneously surface during the clinical interview of a medical patient, they may serve as red flags for a potential underlying mental disorder. Recent stress, multiple physical complaints, or low ratings of overall health identify patients at higher risk for underlying mental disorders in whom specific probing about mental disorders is particularly warranted.

Second, most patients who present with mental disorders in the medical setting report physical rather than emotional symptoms,4,3234 and premature questioning about depression or anxiety can elicit negative reactions in some patients. A gradual approach linking physical complaints and psychological symptoms may be more effective. Indeed, the causal relationship (and directionality) between physical and emotional symptoms is not clear-cut in many medical patients. Therefore, the physician need not always insist on depression, anxiety, or somatization as the cause of the patient's physical symptoms, but rather can adopt a more neutral position by considering depressive or anxiety symptoms as simply coexisting conditions or a potential consequence of persistent physical distress.

Our study has several limitations. First, this sample consisted of patients presenting to a primary care walk-in clinic with a physical complaint. It would be helpful to test it in a sample of patients within the context of continuity-of-care visits. Second, a substantial proportion of patients had subthreshold diagnoses, such as minor depressive and anxiety disorders, for which antidepressants or other treatment have been studied inadequately. Although it is likely that the natural history of these disorders is more favorable, it has been found that such patients have higher rates of unmet expectations, are more likely to be reported as difficult by their provider, and have persistence of psychological symptoms for months after the initial encounter. Therefore, identification of such patients may be important.

Currently, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination, and the US Preventive Services Task Force do not recommend the routine use of case-finding instruments among all clinic patients, recommending instead that clinicians remain alert for symptoms of mental disorders.9 Unfortunately, this strategy results in up to half of such patients being missed. The S3 or S4 models may be a way to alert clinicians to patients at high risk for an underlying disorder, since the number of predictors (symptom count, stress, health status) stratify them into groups ranging from a very low to a very high likelihood of a mental disorder.

Accepted for publication September 14, 2000.

The opinions or assertions contained herein are the private views of the authors and are not to be construed as official or as reflecting those of the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense.

Corresponding author: Jeffrey L. Jackson, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine-EDP, Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, 4301 Jones Bridge Rd, Bethesda, MD 20814 (e-mail: jejackson@usuhs.mil).

Ormel  JVonKorff  MUston  TBPini  SKorten  AOldehinkel  T Common mental disorders and disability across cultures: results from the WHO Collaborative Study on Psychological Problems in General Health Care. JAMA. 1994;2721741- 1748
Link to Article
Spitzer  RLWilliams  JBWKroenke  K  et al.  Utility of a new procedure for diagnosing mental disorders in primary care: the PRIME-MD 1000 study. JAMA. 1994;2721749- 1756
Link to Article
Sartorius  NedGoldberg  Dedde Girolamo  GedCosta e Silva  JAedLecrubier  YedWittchen  HUed Psychological Disorders in General Medical Settings.  Lewiston, NY Hofgrebe & Huber1990;
Kroenke  KJackson  JLChamberlin  J Depressive and anxiety disorders in patients presenting with physical complaints. Am J Med. 1997;103339- 347
Link to Article
Lipowski  ZJ Somatization and depression. Psychosomatics. 1990;3113- 21
Link to Article
Barrett  JEBarrett  JAOxman  TEGerber  PD The prevalence of psychiatric disorders in primary care. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1988;451100- 1106
Link to Article
Schulberg  HCBurns  BJ Mental disorders in primary care: epidemiologic, diagnostic and treatment direction. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 1988;1079- 87
Link to Article
Philbrick  JTConnelly  JEWofford  AB The prevalence of mental disorders in rural office practice. J Gen Intern Med. 1996;119- 15
Link to Article
Mulrow  CDWilliams  JWGerety  MBRamirez  GMontiel  OMKerber  C Case-finding instruments for depression in primary care settings. Ann Intern Med. 1995;122913- 921
Link to Article
Broadhead  WELeon  ACWeissman  MM  et al.  Development and validation of the SDSS-PC screen for multiple mental disorders in primary care. Arch Fam Med. 1995;4211- 219
Link to Article
Ormel  JKoeter  MWJvan den Brink  Wvan de Willig  G Recognition, management, and course of anxiety and depression in general practice. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1991;48700- 706
Link to Article
Klinkman  MS Competing demands in psychosocial care: a model for the identification and treatment of depressive disorders in primary care. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 1997;1998- 111
Link to Article
Kroenke  K Discovering depression in medical patients: reasonable expectations. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126463- 465
Link to Article
Jackson  JLO'Malley  PGKroenke  K Clinical predictors of mental disorders among medical outpatients: validation of the "S4" model. Psychosomatics. 1998;39431- 436
Link to Article
Good  MDGood  BJNassi  AJ Patient requests in primary health care settings: development and validation of a research instrument. J Behav Med. 1983;6151- 169
Link to Article
Marple  RLucey  CKroenke  KWilder  JLucas  C A prospective study of concerns and expectations in patients presenting with common symptoms. Arch Intern Med. 1997;1571482- 1488
Link to Article
Ware  JENelson  ECSherbourne  CDStewart  AL Preliminary tests of a 6-item general health survey: a patient application. Ware  JEStewart  ELedsMeasuring Functioning and Well-Being The Medical Outcomes Study Approach. Durham, NC Duke University Press1992;291- 308
American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition.  Washington, DC American Psychiatric Association1994;
Jackson  JLStrong  JCheng  EMeyer  G Patients, diagnoses, and procedures in a military internal medicine clinic: comparison with civilian practices. Mil Med. 1999;164194- 197
Jackson  JLO'Malley  PGKroenke  K A psychometric comparison of military and civilian medical practices. Mil Med. 1999;164112- 115
Hahn  SRKroenke  KSpitzer  RL  et al.  The difficult patient: prevalence, psychopathology and functional impairment. J Gen Intern Med. 1996;111- 8
Link to Article
Hahn  SRThompson  KSStern  VBudner  NSWills  TA The difficult doctor-patient relationship: somatization, personality and psychopathology. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47647- 658
Link to Article
Stata Corporation, Stata Statistical Software: Release 6.0.  College Station, Tex Stata Corp1999;
Hosmer  DWLemeshow  S A goodness-of-fit test for the multiple logistic regression model. Commun Stat. 1980;101043- 1069
Link to Article
Schappert  SM National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 1989 summary: National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 13. 1992; ((110)) 1- 80
Spitzer  RLKroenke  KWilliams  JBW Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: the PHQ Primary Care Study. JAMA. 1999;2821737- 1744
Link to Article
Schurman  RAKrooner  PDMitchell  JB The hidden mental health network: treatment of mental illness by nonpsychiatric physicians. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1985;4289- 94
Link to Article
O'Malley  PGWong  PWKroenke  KRoy  MJWong  RK The value of screening for psychiatric disorders prior to upper endoscopy. J Psychosom Res. 1998;44279- 287
Link to Article
O'Malley  PGJackson  JLKroenke  KYoon  KHornstein  EDennis  GJ The value of screening for psychiatric disorders in rheumatology referrals. Arch Intern Med. 1998;1582357- 2362
Link to Article
Ekstrand  JO'Malley  PLabutta  RJackson  J Mental disorders in a neurology clinic setting [abstract]. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15(suppl 1)113
Whooley  MAAvins  ALMiranda  JBrowner  WS Case-finding instruments for depression: two questions are as good as many. J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12439- 445
Link to Article
Katon  WKleinman  ARosen  G Depression and somatization: a review. Am J Med. 1982;72127- 135, 241-247
Link to Article
Bridges  KWGoldberg  DP Somatic presentations of DSM III psychiatric disorders in primary care. J Psychosom Res. 1985;29563- 569
Link to Article
Kirmayer  LJRobbins  JM Three forms of somatization in primary care: prevalence, co-occurrence and sociodemographic characteristics. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1991;179647- 655
Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption

Functional status score by presence of depressive, anxiety, or somatoform disorder. Functional status was measured in 6 domains using the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form–6.17 Five of the domains use 5-point Likert questions scored from 1 to 5, with 5 representing better functioning. Pain is scored on a 6-point scale. The 6 domains of functioning include overall ("In general, would you say your health is excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor," with excellent scored as 5 and poor as 1); physical ("In the past week, to what extent did your health problems limit you in your everyday physical activities? [1-5]"); pain ("How much bodily pain have you had during the past week? [1-6]"); emotion ("During the past week, how much have you been bothered by emotional problems [such as feeling anxious, depressed, or irritable] [1-5]?"); role ("During the past week, how much difficulty did you have doing your daily work, both inside and outside the house, because of your physical health or emotional problems? [1-5]"); and social ("During the past week, to what extent has your physical health or emotional problems interfered with your normal social activities with family, friends, neighbors, or groups? [1-5]"). P<.001 for all comparisons between patients with and without a mental disorder.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Characteristics of 250 Walk-in Patients Stratified by Psychiatric Status
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Independent Predictors of Depressive or Anxiety Disorders

References

Ormel  JVonKorff  MUston  TBPini  SKorten  AOldehinkel  T Common mental disorders and disability across cultures: results from the WHO Collaborative Study on Psychological Problems in General Health Care. JAMA. 1994;2721741- 1748
Link to Article
Spitzer  RLWilliams  JBWKroenke  K  et al.  Utility of a new procedure for diagnosing mental disorders in primary care: the PRIME-MD 1000 study. JAMA. 1994;2721749- 1756
Link to Article
Sartorius  NedGoldberg  Dedde Girolamo  GedCosta e Silva  JAedLecrubier  YedWittchen  HUed Psychological Disorders in General Medical Settings.  Lewiston, NY Hofgrebe & Huber1990;
Kroenke  KJackson  JLChamberlin  J Depressive and anxiety disorders in patients presenting with physical complaints. Am J Med. 1997;103339- 347
Link to Article
Lipowski  ZJ Somatization and depression. Psychosomatics. 1990;3113- 21
Link to Article
Barrett  JEBarrett  JAOxman  TEGerber  PD The prevalence of psychiatric disorders in primary care. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1988;451100- 1106
Link to Article
Schulberg  HCBurns  BJ Mental disorders in primary care: epidemiologic, diagnostic and treatment direction. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 1988;1079- 87
Link to Article
Philbrick  JTConnelly  JEWofford  AB The prevalence of mental disorders in rural office practice. J Gen Intern Med. 1996;119- 15
Link to Article
Mulrow  CDWilliams  JWGerety  MBRamirez  GMontiel  OMKerber  C Case-finding instruments for depression in primary care settings. Ann Intern Med. 1995;122913- 921
Link to Article
Broadhead  WELeon  ACWeissman  MM  et al.  Development and validation of the SDSS-PC screen for multiple mental disorders in primary care. Arch Fam Med. 1995;4211- 219
Link to Article
Ormel  JKoeter  MWJvan den Brink  Wvan de Willig  G Recognition, management, and course of anxiety and depression in general practice. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1991;48700- 706
Link to Article
Klinkman  MS Competing demands in psychosocial care: a model for the identification and treatment of depressive disorders in primary care. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 1997;1998- 111
Link to Article
Kroenke  K Discovering depression in medical patients: reasonable expectations. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126463- 465
Link to Article
Jackson  JLO'Malley  PGKroenke  K Clinical predictors of mental disorders among medical outpatients: validation of the "S4" model. Psychosomatics. 1998;39431- 436
Link to Article
Good  MDGood  BJNassi  AJ Patient requests in primary health care settings: development and validation of a research instrument. J Behav Med. 1983;6151- 169
Link to Article
Marple  RLucey  CKroenke  KWilder  JLucas  C A prospective study of concerns and expectations in patients presenting with common symptoms. Arch Intern Med. 1997;1571482- 1488
Link to Article
Ware  JENelson  ECSherbourne  CDStewart  AL Preliminary tests of a 6-item general health survey: a patient application. Ware  JEStewart  ELedsMeasuring Functioning and Well-Being The Medical Outcomes Study Approach. Durham, NC Duke University Press1992;291- 308
American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition.  Washington, DC American Psychiatric Association1994;
Jackson  JLStrong  JCheng  EMeyer  G Patients, diagnoses, and procedures in a military internal medicine clinic: comparison with civilian practices. Mil Med. 1999;164194- 197
Jackson  JLO'Malley  PGKroenke  K A psychometric comparison of military and civilian medical practices. Mil Med. 1999;164112- 115
Hahn  SRKroenke  KSpitzer  RL  et al.  The difficult patient: prevalence, psychopathology and functional impairment. J Gen Intern Med. 1996;111- 8
Link to Article
Hahn  SRThompson  KSStern  VBudner  NSWills  TA The difficult doctor-patient relationship: somatization, personality and psychopathology. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47647- 658
Link to Article
Stata Corporation, Stata Statistical Software: Release 6.0.  College Station, Tex Stata Corp1999;
Hosmer  DWLemeshow  S A goodness-of-fit test for the multiple logistic regression model. Commun Stat. 1980;101043- 1069
Link to Article
Schappert  SM National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 1989 summary: National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 13. 1992; ((110)) 1- 80
Spitzer  RLKroenke  KWilliams  JBW Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: the PHQ Primary Care Study. JAMA. 1999;2821737- 1744
Link to Article
Schurman  RAKrooner  PDMitchell  JB The hidden mental health network: treatment of mental illness by nonpsychiatric physicians. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1985;4289- 94
Link to Article
O'Malley  PGWong  PWKroenke  KRoy  MJWong  RK The value of screening for psychiatric disorders prior to upper endoscopy. J Psychosom Res. 1998;44279- 287
Link to Article
O'Malley  PGJackson  JLKroenke  KYoon  KHornstein  EDennis  GJ The value of screening for psychiatric disorders in rheumatology referrals. Arch Intern Med. 1998;1582357- 2362
Link to Article
Ekstrand  JO'Malley  PLabutta  RJackson  J Mental disorders in a neurology clinic setting [abstract]. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15(suppl 1)113
Whooley  MAAvins  ALMiranda  JBrowner  WS Case-finding instruments for depression: two questions are as good as many. J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12439- 445
Link to Article
Katon  WKleinman  ARosen  G Depression and somatization: a review. Am J Med. 1982;72127- 135, 241-247
Link to Article
Bridges  KWGoldberg  DP Somatic presentations of DSM III psychiatric disorders in primary care. J Psychosom Res. 1985;29563- 569
Link to Article
Kirmayer  LJRobbins  JM Three forms of somatization in primary care: prevalence, co-occurrence and sociodemographic characteristics. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1991;179647- 655
Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 27

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles