Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25653089›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2015

The development and psychometric properties of a measure of clinicians' attitudes to depression: the revised Depression Attitude Questionnaire (R-DAQ).

Mark Haddad, Marco Menchetti, Eamonn McKeown, André Tylee, Anthony Mann

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
14.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Mark HaddadCentre for Mental Health Research, School of Health Sciences, City University London, Northampton Square, London, EC1V 0HB, UK. mark.haddad.1@city.ac.uk.
Marco MenchettiDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. marco.menchetti3@unibo.it.
Eamonn McKeownCentre for Health Services Research, City University London, London, UK. Eamonn.McKeown.1@city.ac.uk.
André TyleeSection of Primary Care Mental Health, Health Services and Population Research Department, King's College London, London, UK. andre.tylee@kcl.ac.uk.
Anthony MannSection of Primary Care Mental Health, Health Services and Population Research Department, King's College London, London, UK. anthony.mann@kcl.ac.uk.
City, University of London · GBKing's College London · GBUniversity of Bologna · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDepression is a common mental disorder associated with substantial disability. It is inadequately recognised and managed, and clinicians' attitudes to this condition and its treatment may play a part in this. Most research in this area has used the Depression Attitude Questionnaire (DAQ), but analyses have shown this measure to exhibit problems in psychometric properties and suitability for the health professionals and settings where depression recognition may occur.

methodsWe revised the DAQ using a pooled review of findings from studies using this measure, together with a Delphi study which sought the opinions of a panel of relevant experts based in the UK, USA, Australia, and European countries (n = 24) using 3 rounds of questioning to consider attitude dimensions, content, and item wording. After item generation, revision and consensus (agreement >70%) using the Delphi panel, the revised DAQ (R-DAQ) was tested with 1193 health care providers to determine its psychometric properties. Finally the test-retest reliability of the R-DAQ was examined with 38 participants.

resultsThe 22-item R-DAQ scale showed good internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.84; and satisfactory test-retest reliability: intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.62 (95% C.I. 0.37 to 0.78). Exploratory factor analysis favoured a three-factor structure (professional confidence, therapeutic optimism/pessimism, and a generalist perspective), which accounted for 45.3% of the variance.

conclusionsThe R-DAQ provides a revised tool for examining clinicians' views and understanding of depression. It addresses important weaknesses in the original measure whilst retaining items and dimensions that appeared valid. This revised scale is likely to be useful in examining attitudes across the health professional workforce and beyond the confines of the UK, and may be valuable for the purpose of evaluating training that aims to address clinicians' attitudes to depression. It incorporates key dimensions of attitudes with a modest number of items making it applicable to use in busy clinical settings.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelSurveys and QuestionnairesAustraliaCross-Sectional StudiesDepressive DisorderEuropeFactor Analysis, StatisticalHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID25653089
PMCPMC4321322
OpenAlexW2038170161

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.