File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Does the method of data collection affect the reporting of depression in the relatives of depressed probands?

TitleDoes the method of data collection affect the reporting of depression in the relatives of depressed probands?
Authors
Issue Date1998
PublisherElsevier BV. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jad
Citation
Journal Of Affective Disorders, 1998, v. 47 n. 1-3, p. 151-158 How to Cite?
AbstractBackground: Data is usually collected from different sources in family studies in depression. We sought to determine what effect different methods of data collection had on the reporting of the lifetime prevalence of depression in the relatives of depressed probands. Method: We examined the psychiatric histories of 519 first-degree relatives of a consecutive series of 89 hospitalised depressed probands to ascertain their lifetime prevalence of RDC Major Depression. These data on relatives were obtained either directly with the SADS-L (n = 116), indirectly with the Family History RDC (FH-RDC) (n = 283) or by examining the casenotes of the probands (n = 120). Results: The method of data collection had a marked effect on the reported prevalence of depression, with direct interview being much more sensitive in detecting the less severe forms of the illness. The lifetime prevalence of hospitalised depression in relatives, however, was unaffected by the method of the data collection. Variation in lifetime prevalence of depression between the SADS-L and FH-RDC appeared to be due mainly to differences in the sensitivity of the instrumentation rather than to biases in sampling. Conclusion: We confirm that indirect sources of family information have reduced sensitivity for the detection of depression in relatives compared with direct interview. Limitations: The numbers of relatives directly interviewed were small and the probands represented a severely affected sample which limits the generalisability of the findings. Clinical relevance: Combining data from different methods of collection in family studies is therefore problematic unless a narrow definition of caseness is used (e.g. depression requiring hospitalisation).
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/175783
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 3.57
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.927
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorDuggan, Cen_US
dc.contributor.authorSham, Pen_US
dc.contributor.authorMinne, Cen_US
dc.contributor.authorLee, Aen_US
dc.contributor.authorMurray, Ren_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-11-26T09:01:15Z-
dc.date.available2012-11-26T09:01:15Z-
dc.date.issued1998en_US
dc.identifier.citationJournal Of Affective Disorders, 1998, v. 47 n. 1-3, p. 151-158en_US
dc.identifier.issn0165-0327en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/175783-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Data is usually collected from different sources in family studies in depression. We sought to determine what effect different methods of data collection had on the reporting of the lifetime prevalence of depression in the relatives of depressed probands. Method: We examined the psychiatric histories of 519 first-degree relatives of a consecutive series of 89 hospitalised depressed probands to ascertain their lifetime prevalence of RDC Major Depression. These data on relatives were obtained either directly with the SADS-L (n = 116), indirectly with the Family History RDC (FH-RDC) (n = 283) or by examining the casenotes of the probands (n = 120). Results: The method of data collection had a marked effect on the reported prevalence of depression, with direct interview being much more sensitive in detecting the less severe forms of the illness. The lifetime prevalence of hospitalised depression in relatives, however, was unaffected by the method of the data collection. Variation in lifetime prevalence of depression between the SADS-L and FH-RDC appeared to be due mainly to differences in the sensitivity of the instrumentation rather than to biases in sampling. Conclusion: We confirm that indirect sources of family information have reduced sensitivity for the detection of depression in relatives compared with direct interview. Limitations: The numbers of relatives directly interviewed were small and the probands represented a severely affected sample which limits the generalisability of the findings. Clinical relevance: Combining data from different methods of collection in family studies is therefore problematic unless a narrow definition of caseness is used (e.g. depression requiring hospitalisation).en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherElsevier BV. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jaden_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Affective Disordersen_US
dc.subject.meshBias (Epidemiology)en_US
dc.subject.meshData Collection - Methods - Standardsen_US
dc.subject.meshDepressive Disorder - Epidemiology - Geneticsen_US
dc.subject.meshFamilyen_US
dc.subject.meshFemaleen_US
dc.subject.meshFollow-Up Studiesen_US
dc.subject.meshHospitalizationen_US
dc.subject.meshHumansen_US
dc.subject.meshMaleen_US
dc.subject.meshPrevalenceen_US
dc.subject.meshPsychiatric Status Rating Scales - Statistics & Numerical Dataen_US
dc.subject.meshRisk Factorsen_US
dc.subject.meshSensitivity And Specificityen_US
dc.titleDoes the method of data collection affect the reporting of depression in the relatives of depressed probands?en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailSham, P: pcsham@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authoritySham, P=rp00459en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/S0165-0327(97)00136-5en_US
dc.identifier.pmid9476755-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-0031912046en_US
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-0031912046&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_US
dc.identifier.volume47en_US
dc.identifier.issue1-3en_US
dc.identifier.spage151en_US
dc.identifier.epage158en_US
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000071687700018-
dc.publisher.placeNetherlandsen_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridDuggan, C=7101812173en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridSham, P=34573429300en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridMinne, C=55393727700en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLee, A=19135120800en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridMurray, R=35406239400en_US

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats