ArticlePLOS global public health2024
Adaptation of the Client Diagnostic Questionnaire for East Africa.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy of mental health screening tools applicable to adolescents in sub-Saharan Africa.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- Social relationships, mental health, and stigma: A qualitative study of social networks and HIV disclosure in Western Kenya.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Research increasingly involves cross-cultural work with non-English-speaking populations, necessitating translation and cultural validation of research tools. This paper describes the process of translating and criterion validation of the Client Diagnostic Questionnaire (CDQ) for use in a multisite study in Kenya and Uganda. The English CDQ was translated into Swahili, Dholuo (Kenya) and Runyankole/Rukiga (Uganda) by expert translators. The translated documents underwent face validation by a bilingual committee, who resolved unclear statements, agreed on final translations and reviewed back translations to English. A diagnostic interview by a mental health specialist was used for criterion validation, and Kappa statistics assessed the strength of agreement between non-specialist scores and mental health professionals' diagnoses. Achieving semantic equivalence between translations was a challenge. Validation analysis was done with 30 participants at each site (median age 32.3 years (IQR = (26.5, 36.3)); 58 (64.4%) female). The sensitivity was 86.7%, specificity 64.4%, positive predictive value 70.9% and negative predictive value 82.9%. Diagnostic accuracy by the non-specialist was 75.6%. Agreement was substantial for major depressive episode and positive alcohol (past 6 months) and alcohol abuse (past 30 days). Agreement was moderate for other depressive disorders, panic disorder and psychosis screen; fair for generalized anxiety, drug abuse (past 6 months) and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD); and poor for drug abuse (past 30 days). Variability of agreement between sites was seen for drug use (past 6 months) and PTSD. Our study successfully adapted the CDQ for use among people living with HIV in East Africa. We established that trained non-specialists can use the CDQ to screen for common mental health and substance use disorders with reasonable accuracy. Its use has the potential to increase case identification, improve linkage to mental healthcare, and improve outcomes. We recommend further studies to establish the psychometric properties of the translated tool.
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.