Cite this publication
One consensual depression diagnosis tool to serve many countries: a challenge! A RAND/UCLA methodology
Nabbe, P.; Le Reste, J. Y.; Guillou-Landreat, M.; Beck-Robert, E.; Assenova, R.; Lazic, D. & Czachowski, S. et al. (2018)
BMC Research Notes, 11(1) pp. 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-017-3111-x
Documents & Media
- Nabbe, P.; Le Reste, J. Y.; Guillou-Landreat, M.; Beck-Robert, E.; Assenova, R.; Lazic, D.; Czachowski, S.; Stojanović-Špehar, S.; Hasanagic, M.; Lingner, H.; Clavería, A.; Fernandez San Martin, M. I.; Sowinska, A.; Argyriadou, S.; Lygidakis, C.; Le Floch, B.; Doerr, C.; Montier, T.; Van Marwijk, H.; Van Royen, P.
- From a systematic literature review (SLR), it became clear that a consensually validated tool was needed by European General Practitioner (GP) researchers in order to allow multi-centred collaborative research, in daily practice, throughout Europe. Which diagnostic tool for depression, validated against psychiatric examination according to the DSM, would GPs select as the best for use in clinical research, taking into account the combination of effectiveness, reliability and ergonomics? A RAND/UCLA, which combines the qualities of the Delphi process and of the nominal group, was used. GP researchers from different European countries were selected. The SLR extracted tools were validated against the DSM. The Youden index was used as an effectiveness criterion and Cronbach's alpha as a reliability criterion. Ergonomics data were extracted from the literature. Ergonomics were tested face-to-face.
- Issue Date
- BMC Research Notes
- Institut für Allgemeinmedizin