↓ Skip to main content

Probability of major depression diagnostic classification using semi-structured versus fully structured diagnostic interviews

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Psychiatry, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
15 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
216 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Probability of major depression diagnostic classification using semi-structured versus fully structured diagnostic interviews
Published in
British Journal of Psychiatry, May 2018
DOI 10.1192/bjp.2018.54
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brooke Levis, Andrea Benedetti, Kira E. Riehm, Nazanin Saadat, Alexander W. Levis, Marleine Azar, Danielle B. Rice, Matthew J. Chiovitti, Tatiana A. Sanchez, Pim Cuijpers, Simon Gilbody, John P. A. Ioannidis, Lorie A. Kloda, Dean McMillan, Scott B. Patten, Ian Shrier, Russell J. Steele, Roy C. Ziegelstein, Dickens H. Akena, Bruce Arroll, Liat Ayalon, Hamid R. Baradaran, Murray Baron, Anna Beraldi, Charles H. Bombardier, Peter Butterworth, Gregory Carter, Marcos H. Chagas, Juliana C. N. Chan, Rushina Cholera, Neerja Chowdhary, Kerrie Clover, Yeates Conwell, Janneke M. de Man-van Ginkel, Jaime Delgadillo, Jesse R. Fann, Felix H. Fischer, Benjamin Fischler, Daniel Fung, Bizu Gelaye, Felicity Goodyear-Smith, Catherine G. Greeno, Brian J. Hall, John Hambridge, Patricia A. Harrison, Ulrich Hegerl, Leanne Hides, Stevan E. Hobfoll, Marie Hudson, Thomas Hyphantis, Masatoshi Inagaki, Khalida Ismail, Nathalie Jetté, Mohammad E. Khamseh, Kim M. Kiely, Femke Lamers, Shen-Ing Liu, Manote Lotrakul, Sonia R. Loureiro, Bernd Löwe, Laura Marsh, Anthony McGuire, Sherina Mohd Sidik, Tiago N. Munhoz, Kumiko Muramatsu, Flávia L. Osório, Vikram Patel, Brian W. Pence, Philippe Persoons, Angelo Picardi, Alasdair G. Rooney, Iná S. Santos, Juwita Shaaban, Abbey Sidebottom, Adam Simning, Lesley Stafford, Sharon Sung, Pei Lin Lynnette Tan, Alyna Turner, Christina M. van der Feltz-Cornelis, Henk C. van Weert, Paul A. Vöhringer, Jennifer White, Mary A. Whooley, Kirsty Winkley, Mitsuhiko Yamada, Yuying Zhang, Brett D. Thombs

Abstract

Different diagnostic interviews are used as reference standards for major depression classification in research. Semi-structured interviews involve clinical judgement, whereas fully structured interviews are completely scripted. The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), a brief fully structured interview, is also sometimes used. It is not known whether interview method is associated with probability of major depression classification.AimsTo evaluate the association between interview method and odds of major depression classification, controlling for depressive symptom scores and participant characteristics. Data collected for an individual participant data meta-analysis of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) diagnostic accuracy were analysed and binomial generalised linear mixed models were fit. A total of 17 158 participants (2287 with major depression) from 57 primary studies were analysed. Among fully structured interviews, odds of major depression were higher for the MINI compared with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) (odds ratio (OR) = 2.10; 95% CI = 1.15-3.87). Compared with semi-structured interviews, fully structured interviews (MINI excluded) were non-significantly more likely to classify participants with low-level depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 scores ≤6) as having major depression (OR = 3.13; 95% CI = 0.98-10.00), similarly likely for moderate-level symptoms (PHQ-9 scores 7-15) (OR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.56-1.66) and significantly less likely for high-level symptoms (PHQ-9 scores ≥16) (OR = 0.50; 95% CI = 0.26-0.97). The MINI may identify more people as depressed than the CIDI, and semi-structured and fully structured interviews may not be interchangeable methods, but these results should be replicated.Declaration of interestDrs Jetté and Patten declare that they received a grant, outside the submitted work, from the Hotchkiss Brain Institute, which was jointly funded by the Institute and Pfizer. Pfizer was the original sponsor of the development of the PHQ-9, which is now in the public domain. Dr Chan is a steering committee member or consultant of Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Lilly, MSD and Pfizer. She has received sponsorships and honorarium for giving lectures and providing consultancy and her affiliated institution has received research grants from these companies. Dr Hegerl declares that within the past 3 years, he was an advisory board member for Lundbeck, Servier and Otsuka Pharma; a consultant for Bayer Pharma; and a speaker for Medice Arzneimittel, Novartis, and Roche Pharma, all outside the submitted work. Dr Inagaki declares that he has received grants from Novartis Pharma, lecture fees from Pfizer, Mochida, Shionogi, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, Daiichi-Sankyo, Meiji Seika and Takeda, and royalties from Nippon Hyoron Sha, Nanzando, Seiwa Shoten, Igaku-shoin and Technomics, all outside of the submitted work. Dr Yamada reports personal fees from Meiji Seika Pharma Co., Ltd., MSD K.K., Asahi Kasei Pharma Corporation, Seishin Shobo, Seiwa Shoten Co., Ltd., Igaku-shoin Ltd., Chugai Igakusha and Sentan Igakusha, all outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests. No funder had any role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; preparation, review or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 216 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 216 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 13%
Researcher 24 11%
Student > Master 19 9%
Student > Bachelor 15 7%
Lecturer 12 6%
Other 47 22%
Unknown 71 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 19%
Psychology 36 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 6%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 3%
Other 34 16%
Unknown 78 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 September 2019.
All research outputs
#1,962,774
of 25,870,940 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Psychiatry
#1,143
of 6,364 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,009
of 341,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Psychiatry
#16
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,870,940 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,364 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,067 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.