ArticleCureus2024
The Assessment of Geriatric Depression Among Primary Healthcare Physicians in Buraidah City, Saudi Arabia.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe global geriatric population is increasing, leading to a higher prevalence of non-communicable diseases, including depression. This condition often remains underdiagnosed and untreated disease. METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 130 primary healthcare physicians (PCPs) in Buraidah to assess their practices in diagnosing geriatric depression from March 2023 to March 2024. After ethical committee approval, data were collected through a self-administered questionnaire, entered, cleaned, and analyzed with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, IBM Corp., Version 21.0, Armonk, NY). Informed consent was obtained and the confidentiality of the participant information was maintained. Statistical tests, including the Chi-square test, were used for inference.
resultsOut of 130 PCPs, 85.4% (n=111) were diagnosing depression during their clinical practice. The most common depression scale used in their regular practice was the patient health questionnaire (PHQ)-2 (70%, n=91), followed by the Geriatric Depression Scale (53.8%, n=70). Nearly 26.2% (n=34) of physicians responded that there is no need for routine lab tests for the diagnosis of depression. Concerning the initial plan of depression management, nearly 76.2% (n=99) of physicians preferred non-pharmacological treatment. Regarding barriers to diagnosis of depression in elderly patients, nearly 76.2% (n=99) mentioned the need for more training about geriatric depression, followed by 70% for both short consultation time and the need for Ministry of Health guidelines. There was a statistically significant association observed between <35 years of age group and a preference for a high percentage of pharmacological therapy (P<0.05).
conclusionsBased on the findings of the study, there was a good number (85.4%) of PCPs diagnosing depression in their clinics, and also three-fourths of the physicians (76.2%) preferred non-pharmacological treatment. Only one-fourth (26.2%) of the PCPs mentioned no lab is required for the diagnosis of depression.
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.