Development and validation of a 6-day standard for the identification of frequent mental distress
- First Online:
- 129 Downloads
The goals of the current study were to assess the concurrent validity of a single-item measure of general mental distress with established, multi-item mental health measures used in population-level surveillance and to establish the optimal cutpoint for determining psychological distress (previously identified as frequent mental distress) using recently available data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey.
Data for this study were obtained from the core questionnaire and two optional modules available as part of the 2006 and 2007 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) surveys. Frequent mental distress (FMD) was identified by the number of days of self-reported poor mental health during the last 30 days. Comparisons of the number of days with poor mental health and positive scores for measures of depression and serious mental illness were calculated to identify the most efficient cutpoint for establishing FMD.
Comparisons of results obtained from ROC analyses using the PHQ-8 and K6 reported 0.867 (95% CI 0.861–0.872) and 0.840 (95% CI 0.836–0.845) of the area under the curve, respectively, suggesting good accuracy. Using the Youden index, 6 days of poor mental health in the past 30 days, rather than the existing 14-day standard, was identified as the point at which the sum of the sensitivity and specificity was greatest.
Results from this study suggest that a 6-day standard (FMD-6) can be used as a valid and reliable indicator of generalized mental distress with strong associations to both diagnosable depressive symptomology and serious mental illness.
KeywordsSurveillance Mental health Psychological distress Methodology
- 1.National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) (2009) The numbers count: mental disorders in America. National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MDGoogle Scholar
- 4.Murray C, Lopez A (1996) The global burden of disease. A comprehensive assessment of mortality and disability from diseases, injuries, and risk factors in 1990 and projected to 2020. Harvard School of Public Health, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
- 5.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2009) The behavioral risk factor surveillance system (BRFSS). http://www.cdc.gov/brfss. Accessed 18 May 2009
- 11.Ounpuu S, Chambers L, Patterson C, Chan D, Yusuf S (2001) Validity of the US Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System’s health related quality of life survey tool in a group of older Canadians. Chronic Dis Can 22:1–16Google Scholar
- 15.Kroenke K, Spitzer R (2002) The PHQ-9: a new depression diagnostic and severity measure. Psychiatr Ann 32:1–7Google Scholar
- 24.Wulsin L, Somoza EHJ (2002) The feasibility of using the Spanish PHQ-9 to screen for depression in primary care in Honduras. J Clin Psychiatry 4:191–195Google Scholar
- 26.Kessler R, Berglund P, Glantz M et al (2002) Estimating the prevalence and correlates of serious mental illness in community and epidemiological surveys. Mental Health. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Rockville, MDGoogle Scholar
- 30.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2006) Behavioral risk factor surveillance system: summary data quality report. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GAGoogle Scholar
- 31.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2007) Behavioral risk factor surveillance system: summary data quality report. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GAGoogle Scholar
- 32.Pepe MS (2003) The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classifications and predictions. Oxford, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 33.Szklo M, Nieto F (2007) Epidemiology: beyond the basics, 2nd edn. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, MAGoogle Scholar
- 35.Pines JM, Everett WW (2009) The epidemiology and statistics of diagnostic testing. In: Pines JM, Everett WW (eds) Evidence-based emergency careGoogle Scholar