ArticleGeneral psychiatry2022
An innovative 5-Step Patient Interview approach for integrating mental healthcare into primary care centre services: a validation study.
Article in General psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7) and 2-item (GAD-2) scales for detecting anxiety disorders in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Global educational initiative for managing major depressive disorders in primary care: the MDD minds project.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Common Mental Health Disorders and Their Current Prescription Patterns in Saudi Arabia's Primary Healthcare Settings.Cureus · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Mental health problems are prevalent among patients seeking primary healthcare. However, traditional patient interviews often fail to identify and manage these problems. Therefore, an improved patient interview process is needed to assess and treat mental health problems in primary care settings. Aims: To assess the validity, reliability, sensitivity and specificity of a 5-Step Patient Interview approach for the screening, diagnosis and treatment of mental health problems. Design and setting: This study compared a 5-Step Patient Interview approach (AlKhathami approach) with expert psychiatric interviews based on the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) questionnaire from 1 January 2020 to 30 April 2020 in family practice or primary healthcare centres. Methods: A total of 760 participants from five Saudi Arabian regions were selected using a multiclustered random sample of every third patient aged ≥18 years, drawn from the clinics' patient list. Results: A total of 732 patients agreed to participate, with a response rate of 96.3%; 396 (54.1%) were women; the mean (Standard Deviation) age was 41.28 (14.30) years (ranging from 18 to 84 years). Mental health problems were suspected in 40% of the participants. The 5-Step Patient Interview approach was shown to be comparable to an expert interview by a psychiatrist. Moreover, it was more accurate than the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 self-administered questionnaires in screening for stress and classifying it as mild, moderate to severe or severe. Additionally, the 5-Step Patient Interview approach improved physician-patient communication by encouraging the exploration of patients' perspectives. Conclusions: The 5-Step Patient Interview approach is a valid, reliable tool that can aid the integration of mental healthcare into primary healthcare and family practice. Future studies should evaluate the implementation outcomes of the 5-Step Patient Interview approach.
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.