Skip to main content
PMC home page
The British Journal of General Practice logoLink to The British Journal of General Practice
. 2000 Apr;50(453):284–287.

The validity of the diagnosis of depression in general practice: is using criteria for diagnosis as a routine the answer?

E M van Weel-Baumgarten 1, W J van den Bosch 1, H J van den Hoogen 1, F G Zitman 1
PMCID: PMC1313675  PMID: 10897511

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In general practice, making a diagnosis does not follow the same lines as in secondary care because every new diagnosis is made against 'foreknowledge' and could be coloured by it. This could explain low accordance and differences in diagnoses between primary and secondary care, in particular when mental illness such as depression is concerned. When criteria are used for diagnosis there should be no differences. AIM: To establish the accordance with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV) criteria of major depressive disorder when the diagnosis of depression has been made by general practitioners (GPs) for whom coding and using criteria for diagnosis is a daily routine (ICHPPC-2 criteria). METHOD: Ninety-nine general practice patients from four general practices belonging to the Continuous Morbidity Registry (CMR) of the University of Nijmegen in The Netherlands were interviewed using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (auto) 12-month version (DSM-IV criteria). Thirty-three patients had a code for depression; 33 patients a code for chronic nervous functional complaints (CNFC); and 33 had no code for mental illness (the depression and CNFC codes were given in the 12 months prior to the interview). Specificity and accordance with the DSM-IV criteria of major depressive disorder (MDD) were calculated with the results from the interviews. RESULTS: Of the 33 general practice depression cases (all matching ICHPPC-2 criteria), 28 matched DSM-IV criteria: 26 for MDD and 2 for dysthymia. No cases of DSM-IV MDD were found in the control group without a code for a mental disorder, and seven out of 33 were found in the control group with the code for CNFC. CONCLUSION: The specificity of diagnosis of depression made by GPs in a continuous morbidity registry and the accordance with DSM-IV criteria are high. Using criteria for diagnosis, which is a trend, could be one of the solutions towards a better diagnosis. As far as the sensitivity is concerned, GPs should not be distracted from using criteria for the diagnosis of depression when a large variety of complaints is presented.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (41.3 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Andrews G., Peters L. The psychometric properties of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 1998 Feb;33(2):80–88. doi: 10.1007/s001270050026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Angst J., Merikangas K., Scheidegger P., Wicki W. Recurrent brief depression: a new subtype of affective disorder. J Affect Disord. 1990 Jun;19(2):87–98. doi: 10.1016/0165-0327(90)90013-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Angst J., Wicki W. The Zurich Study. XI. Is dysthymia a separate form of depression? Results of the Zurich Cohort Study. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1991;240(6):349–354. doi: 10.1007/BF02279765. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Freeling P., Rao B. M., Paykel E. S., Sireling L. I., Burton R. H. Unrecognised depression in general practice. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1985 Jun 22;290(6485):1880–1883. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Heath I. Commentary: there must be limits to the medicalisation of human distress. BMJ. 1999 Feb 13;318(7181):439–440. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Kessler D., Lloyd K., Lewis G., Gray D. P. Cross sectional study of symptom attribution and recognition of depression and anxiety in primary care. BMJ. 1999 Feb 13;318(7181):436–439. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7181.436. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Klinkman M. S., Coyne J. C., Gallo S., Schwenk T. L. False positives, false negatives, and the validity of the diagnosis of major depression in primary care. Arch Fam Med. 1998 Sep-Oct;7(5):451–461. doi: 10.1001/archfami.7.5.451. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Ormel J., Koeter M. W., van den Brink W., van de Willige G. Recognition, management, and course of anxiety and depression in general practice. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1991 Aug;48(8):700–706. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1991.01810320024004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Tylee A., Freeling P., Kerry S., Burns T. How does the content of consultations affect the recognition by general practitioners of major depression in women? Br J Gen Pract. 1995 Nov;45(400):575–578. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Wright A. F. Should general practitioners be testing for depression? Br J Gen Pract. 1994 Mar;44(380):132–135. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Wright A. F. Through a glass darkly: understanding depression. Br J Gen Pract. 1999 Feb;49(439):91–92. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. van der Meer K., Tiemens B. G., van den Brink W. Depressie in de eerstelijnsgezondheidszorg; internationale gegevens over prevalentie en behandeling, onder meer uit Nederland. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1996 Oct 26;140(43):2135–2139. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The British Journal of General Practice are provided here courtesy of Royal College of General Practitioners

RESOURCES