↓ Skip to main content

Case-finding for common mental disorders of anxiety and depression in primary care: an external validation of routinely collected data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
111 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
176 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
Case-finding for common mental disorders of anxiety and depression in primary care: an external validation of routinely collected data
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12911-016-0274-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ann John, Joanne McGregor, David Fone, Frank Dunstan, Rosie Cornish, Ronan A. Lyons, Keith R. Lloyd

Abstract

The robustness of epidemiological research using routinely collected primary care electronic data to support policy and practice for common mental disorders (CMD) anxiety and depression would be greatly enhanced by appropriate validation of diagnostic codes and algorithms for data extraction. We aimed to create a robust research platform for CMD using population-based, routinely collected primary care electronic data. We developed a set of Read code lists (diagnosis, symptoms, treatments) for the identification of anxiety and depression in the General Practice Database (GPD) within the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank at Swansea University, and assessed 12 algorithms for Read codes to define cases according to various criteria. Annual incidence rates were calculated per 1000 person years at risk (PYAR) to assess recording practice for these CMD between January 1(st) 2000 and December 31(st) 2009. We anonymously linked the 2799 MHI-5 Caerphilly Health and Social Needs Survey (CHSNS) respondents aged 18 to 74 years to their routinely collected GP data in SAIL. We estimated the sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value of the various algorithms using the MHI-5 as the gold standard. The incidence of combined depression/anxiety diagnoses remained stable over the ten-year period in a population of over 500,000 but symptoms increased from 6.5 to 20.7 per 1000 PYAR. A 'historical' GP diagnosis for depression/anxiety currently treated plus a current diagnosis (treated or untreated) resulted in a specificity of 0.96, sensitivity 0.29 and PPV 0.76. Adding current symptom codes improved sensitivity (0.32) with a marginal effect on specificity (0.95) and PPV (0.74). We have developed an algorithm with a high specificity and PPV of detecting cases of anxiety and depression from routine GP data that incorporates symptom codes to reflect GP coding behaviour. We have demonstrated that using diagnosis and current treatment alone to identify cases for depression and anxiety using routinely collected primary care data will miss a number of true cases given changes in GP recording behaviour. The Read code lists plus the developed algorithms will be applicable to other routinely collected primary care datasets, creating a platform for future e-cohort research into these conditions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 173 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 44 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 15%
Student > Master 20 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Other 34 19%
Unknown 35 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 26%
Psychology 21 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 8%
Social Sciences 10 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 31 18%
Unknown 49 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 10 November 2020.
All research outputs
#4,137,634
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#360
of 1,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,220
of 299,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#9
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,992 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 299,392 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 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 65% of its contemporaries.