Author, Year (Reference): Johnstone and Goldberg, 1976 (14)
Screening Instrument: GHQ
Participants, n: 119
Mode of Administration: Self
Confirmatory Diagnostic Interview?: Yes
Feedback to Provider: Immediate feedback
Quality Rating1, Internal Validity: Good
Quality Rating1, External Validity: Fair
Author, Year (Reference): Moore et al., 1978 (15)
Screening Instrument: SDS
Participants, n: 212
Mode of Administration: Self
Confirmatory Diagnostic Interview?: No
Feedback to Provider: Immediate written feedback
Quality Rating1, Internal Validity: Good
Quality Rating1, External Validity: Fair
Author, Year (Reference): Linn and Yager, 1980 (16)
Screening Instrument: SDS
Participants, n: 150
Mode of Administration: Self
Confirmatory Diagnostic Interview?: No
Feedback to Provider: Immediate written feedback
Quality Rating1, Internal Validity: Good
Quality Rating1, External Validity: Good
Author, Year (Reference): Zung and King, 1983 (17)
Screening Instrument: SDS and immediate diagnostic interview
Participants, n: 49
Mode of Administration: Psychiatrist
Confirmatory Diagnostic Interview?: Yes2
Feedback to Provider: Immediate feedback
Quality Rating1, Internal Validity: Fair
Quality Rating1, External Validity: Poor
Author, Year (Reference): Magruder-Habib et al., 1990 (18)
Screening Instrument: SDS
Participants, n: 100
Mode of Administration: Research assistant
Confirmatory Diagnostic Interview?: Yes2
Feedback to Provider: Immediate written feedback
Quality Rating1, Internal Validity: Good
Quality Rating1, External Validity: Good
Author, Year (Reference): Callahan et al., 1994 (19) and 1996 (21)
Screening Instrument: CES-D
Participants, n: 175, 222
Mode of Administration: Research assistant
Confirmatory Diagnostic Interview?: Yes (HAM-D)2
Feedback to Provider: Feedback to schedule 3 additional visits within 3 months
Quality Rating1, Internal Validity: Good
Quality Rating1, External Validity: Fair
Author, Year (Reference): Dowrick, 1995 (20)
Screening Instrument: BDI
Participants, n: 116
Mode of Administration: Self
Confirmatory Diagnostic Interview?: No
Feedback to Provider: Written feedback to provider 1 week after visit, plus chart note
Quality Rating1, Internal Validity: Fair
Quality Rating1, External Validity: Fair
Author, Year (Reference): Lewis et al., 1996 (22)
Screening Instrument: GHQ
Participants, n: 681
Mode of Administration: Self
Confirmatory Diagnostic Interview?: PROQSY group only
Feedback to Provider: Immediate on GHQ results; participants asked to complete PROQSY and, if positive, to schedule follow-up in 1 week
Quality Rating1, Internal Validity: Fair
Quality Rating1, External Validity: Fair
Author, Year (Reference): Reifler et al., 1996 (23)
Screening Instrument: SDDS
Participants, n: 358
Mode of Administration: Self
Confirmatory Diagnostic Interview?: Yes3
Feedback to Provider: Providers given diagnostic worksheet at same visit for participants who screened positive
Quality Rating1, Internal Validity: Good
Quality Rating1, External Validity: Good
Author, Year (Reference): Williams et al., 1999 (11)
Screening Instrument: CES-D, blinded DSM-III-R
Participants, n: 969
Mode of Administration: Self
Confirmatory Diagnostic Interview?: Yes3
Feedback to Provider: Immediate written feedback
Quality Rating1, Internal Validity: Good
Quality Rating1, External Validity: Good
Author, Year (Reference): Katzelnick et al., 2000 (12)
Screening Instrument: SCID + HAM-D
Participants, n: 407
Mode of Administration: Telephone by research assistant
Confirmatory Diagnostic Interview?: No
Feedback to Provider: Immediate written feedback and additional support
Quality Rating1, Internal Validity: Good
Quality Rating1, External Validity: Good
Author, Year (Reference): Wells et al., 2000 (24)
Screening Instrument: Two-item instrument
Participants, n: 1,356
Mode of Administration: Research assistant
Confirmatory Diagnostic Interview?: Yes (subset)3
Feedback to Provider: Providers notified and asked to schedule visit within 2 weeks
Quality Rating1, Internal Validity: Good
Quality Rating1, External Validity: Fair
Author, Year (Reference): Whooley et al., 2000 (25)
Screening Instrument: GDS
Participants, n: 2,346
Mode of Administration: Research assistant
Confirmatory Diagnostic Interview?: No
Feedback to Provider: Intervention providers notified same day (before visit, 74%; after visit, 26%)
Quality Rating1, Internal Validity: Fair
Quality Rating1, External Validity: Fair
Author, Year (Reference): Rost et al., 2001 (13)
Screening Instrument: Sadness or anhedonia within 2 weeks
Participants, n: 479 (189 not recently treated)
Mode of Administration: Nurse
Confirmatory Diagnostic Interview?: Yes
Feedback to Provider: Feedback to provider; nurse-centered follow-up weekly for 5 weeks
Quality Rating1, Internal Validity: Fair
Quality Rating1, External Validity: Good
Note: BDI indicates Beck Depression Inventory; CES-D, Center for Epidemiologic Study Depression scale; GDS, Geriatric Depression Scale; GHQ, General Health Questionnaire; PROSQY, self-administered computerized assessment; SDS, Zung Self-Depression Scale; SDDS, Symptom-Driven Diagnostic System for Primary Care.
1The definitions of the quality ratings are as follows. Good: evidence includes consistent results from well-designed, well-conducted studies in representative populations that directly assess effects on health outcomes. Fair: Evidence is sufficient to determine effects on health outcomes, but the strength of the evidence is limited by the number, quality, or consistency of the individual studies, generalizability to routine practice, or indirect nature of the evidence on health outcomes. Poor: Evidence is insufficient to assess the effects on health outcomes because of limited number or power of studies, important flaws in their design or conduct, gaps in the chain of evidence, or lack of information on important health outcomes.
2Required before randomization.
3Not related to randomization.