Table 3. Summary of the Effect of Feedback from Screening on Rates of Diagnosis1
| Author, Year (Reference) |
Participants with Diagnosis |
Absolute Difference (95% CI) |
P Value2 |
| Intervention Group |
Control Group |
| % (n/n) |
percentage points |
| Johnstone and Goldberg, 1976 (14)3 |
NR |
NR |
NR |
NR |
| Moore et al., 1978 (15)3 |
56 (28/50) |
22 (10/46) |
34 (16.7 to 52) |
< 0.001 |
| Linn and Yager, 1980 (16)4 |
29 (7/24) |
8 (4/50) |
21 (1 to 41) |
|
| Zung and King, 1983 (17)5 |
NR |
NR |
NR |
NR |
| Magruder-Habib et al., 1990 (18)5 |
25 (12/48) |
8 (4/52) |
17 (3 to 32) |
0.018 |
| Callahan et al., 1994 (19)5 |
32 (32/100) |
12 (9/75) |
20 (8 to 32) |
0.002 |
| Callahan et al., 1996 (21)5 |
87 (111/128) |
40 (38/94) |
46 (35 to 58) |
0.001 |
| Dowrick, 1995 (20)3 |
35 (18/51) |
21 (13/63) |
15 (-2 to 31) |
|
| Lewis et al., 1996 (22)3 |
NR |
NR |
NR |
NR |
| Reifler et al., 1996 (23) |
NR |
NR |
NR |
NR |
| Williams et al., 1999 (11)3 |
39 (30/77) |
29 (11/38) |
10 (-8 to 28) |
>
0.05 |
| Katzelnick et al., 2000 (12) |
NR |
NR |
NR |
NR |
| Wells et al., 2000 (24)3 |
NR |
NR |
NR |
NR |
| Whooley et al., 2000 (25)3 |
35 (56/162) |
34 (58/169) |
1 (-9 to 10) |
>
0.2 |
| Rost et al., 2001 (13) |
NR |
NR |
NR |
NR |
1 All figures are rounded to nearest value. NR = not reported and cannot be calculated from available data.
2 P values were not always reported.
3 Denominator is patients who screened positive.
4 Denominator is all patients.
5 Denominator is patients who screened positive and were confirmed to have major depression on diagnostic interview.
Return to Document
540 Gaither Road Rockville, MD 20850