Table 5. Summary of the Effect of Feedback from Screening on Patient Outcomes

Screening for Depression in Adults: Summary of the Evidence

The summaries of the evidence briefly present evidence of effectiveness for preventive health services used in primary care clinical settings, including screening tests, counseling, and chemoprevention. They summarize the more detailed Systematic Evidence Reviews, which are used by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) to make recommendations.
Author, Year (Reference) Outcome Measured Outcome Data Absolute Difference (95% CI) P Value2
Intervention Group Value Control Group Value
Johnstone and Goldberg, 1976 (14)3 Mean months of depression in 1 year 4.2 6.3 -2.1 (NR) < 0.01
Moore et al., 1978 (15)3 NR NR NR NR  
Linn and Yager, 1980 (16)4 NR NR NR NR  
Zung and King, 1983 (17)5 Percentage of participants with <12-point decrease on SDS at 1 month 33% 65% -32% (-61% to -3%) 0.04
Magruder-Habib et al., 1990 (18)5 NR NR NR NR  
Callahan et al., 1994 (19)5  and 1996 (21)5 Percentage of participants with HAM-D > or = 10 at 6 months 87% 88% -1% (-11% to 9%)  
Dowrick, 1995 (20)3 NR NR NR 7 (-9 to 23)  
Lewis et al., 1996 (22)3 Percentage of participants who had not improved at 6 weeks (GHQ score > or = 2) 69% 74.5% -5 percentage points (-14 to 3 percentage points)  
Reifler et al., 1996 (23) Zung SDS score 6 6 6  
Williams et al., 1999 (11)3 Percentage of participants who were depressed at 3 months DSM-III-R criteria 37% 46% -8 percentage points (-21 to 4 percentage points)  
Katzelnick et al., 2000 (12) Percentage of participants who were depressed at 12 months (HAM-D > or = 7) 55% 72% -18 percentage points (-27 to -8 percentage points) 0.001
Wells et al., 2000 (24)3 Percentage of participants who were depressed at 6 months 55.4% 64.4% -9 percentage points (-15 to -3 percentage points) 0.005
Whooley et al., 2000 (25)3 Percentage of participants who were depressed at 24 months (GDS > or = 6) 42% 50% -8 percentage points (-21 to 6 percentage points) > 0.2
Rost et al., 2001 (13) Mean change in CES-D score 21.7 13.5 8.2 (NR) -8 percentage points (-21 to 6 percentage points)

Note: CES-D indicates Center for Epidemiologic Study Depression scale; DSM-III-R, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, third edition, revised; GDS, Geriatric Depression Scale; GHQ, General Health Questionnaire; HAM-D, Hamilton Depression Scale; NR, not reported and cannot be calculated from available data; SDS, Self-Depression Scale; SDDS, Symptom-Driven Diagnostic System for Primary Care.

1 All figures are rounded to nearest percentage..
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.
6 No data were given; the investigators stated that there was "no difference for those screening positive for any disorder."

Return to Document

Page last reviewed April 2013
Page originally created April 2013
Internet Citation: Table 5. Summary of the Effect of Feedback from Screening on Patient Outcomes. Content last reviewed April 2013. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. https://www.ahrq.gov/prevention/resources/depression/depsumtab5.html
Back To Top