Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18186993›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2008

Case finding of lifestyle and mental health disorders in primary care: validation of the 'CHAT' tool.

Felicity Goodyear-Smith, Nicole M Coupe, Bruce Arroll, C Raina Elley, Sean Sullivan, Anne-Thea McGill

Abstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Mental health diagnosis by nurses using the Global Mental Health Assessment Tool: a validity and feasibility study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2008
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Felicity Goodyear-SmithDepartment of General Practice and Primary Health Care, School of Population Health, University of Auckland, New Zealand. f.goodyear-smith@auckland.ac.nz
Nicole M Coupe
Bruce Arroll
C Raina Elley
Sean Sullivan
Anne-Thea McGill

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrimary care is accessible and ideally placed for case finding of patients with lifestyle and mental health risk factors and subsequent intervention. The short self-administered Case-finding and Help Assessment Tool (CHAT) was developed for lifestyle and mental health assessment of adult patients in primary health care. This tool checks for tobacco use, alcohol and other drug misuse, problem gambling, depression, anxiety and stress, abuse, anger problems, inactivity, and eating disorders. It is well accepted by patients, GPs and nurses.

aimTo assess criterion-based validity of CHAT against a composite gold standard. DESIGN OF STUDY: Conducted according to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy statement for diagnostic tests.

settingPrimary care practices in Auckland, New Zealand.

methodOne thousand consecutive adult patients completed CHAT and a composite gold standard. Sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative predictive values, and likelihood ratios were calculated.

resultsResponse rates for each item ranged from 79.6 to 99.8%. CHAT was sensitive and specific for almost all issues screened, except exercise and eating disorders. Sensitivity ranged from 96% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 87 to 99%) for major depression to 26% (95% CI = 22 to 30%) for exercise. Specificity ranged from 97% (95% CI = 96 to 98%) for problem gambling and problem drug use to 40% (95% CI = 36 to 45%) for exercise. All had high likelihood ratios (3-30), except exercise and eating disorders.

conclusionCHAT is a valid and acceptable case-finding tool for most common lifestyle and mental health conditions.

Indexed as

Family PracticeLife StyleAdolescentAdultHumansMass ScreeningMental DisordersNew ZealandPredictive Value of TestsPsychological TestsRisk Reduction BehaviorSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID18186993
PMCPMC2148235

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.