ArticleBMC psychiatry2017
Identifying levels of general distress in first line mental health services: can GP- and eHealth clients' scores be meaningfully compared?
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving Web-Based Treatment Intake for Multiple Mental and Substance Use Disorders by Text Mining and Machine Learning: Algorithm Development and Validation.JMIR mental health · 2022Article
- Assessing measurement equivalence of the Danish and Dutch Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire using differential item and test functioning analysis.Scandinavian journal of public health · 2021Article
- A Smart Screening Device for Patients with Mental Health Problems in Primary Health Care: Development and Pilot Study.JMIR mental health · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) (Huisarts Wetenschap 39: 538-47, 1996) is a self-report questionnaire developed in the Netherlands to distinguish non-specific general distress from depression, anxiety, and somatization. This questionnaire is often used in different populations and settings and there is a paper-and-pencil and computerized version.
methodsWe used item response theory to investigate whether the 4DSQ measures the same construct (structural equivalence) in the same way (scalar equivalence) in two samples comprised of primary mental health care attendees: (i) clients who visited their General Practitioner responded to the 4DSQ paper-and-pencil version, and (ii) eHealth clients responded to the 4DSQ computerized version. Specifically, we investigated whether the distress items functioned differently in eHealth clients compared to General Practitioners' clients and whether these differences lead to substantial differences at scale level.
resultsResults showed that in general structural equivalence holds for the distress scale. This means that the distress scale measures the same construct in both General Practitioners' clients and eHealth clients. Furthermore, although eHealth clients have higher observed distress scores than General Practitioners' clients, application of a multiple group generalized partial credit response model suggests that scalar equivalence holds.
conclusionsThe same cutoff scores can be used for classifying respondents as having low, moderate and high levels of distress in both settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.