The concurrent validity of a new eDiagnostic system for mental disorders in primary care.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: An eDiagnostic system was implemented to classify mental disorders, to support general practitioners. OBJECTIVE: Assessing the validity of the system, compared to the psychologists' judgment. METHODS: Concurrent validity, using routinely collected data of 675 primary care patients with a suspicion of a mental disorder in the Netherlands. Four psychologists classified the patients according to the DSM-IV. Hundred records were randomly selected to investigate the inter-rater reliability among psychologists. To investigate the concurrent validity of the system the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPVs), negative predictive values (NPVs) and Cohen's κ-values (κ-values) were calculated. RESULTS: Inter-rater agreement between psychologists were fair to good or excellent. The system could correctly estimate the echelon (sensitivity range: 0.85-0.95, specificity range: 0.88-0.98) and correctly identify most Axis I classifications (sensitivity: 0.46-1.00, specificity: 0.75-0.99), except for Asperger's, sexual and adjustment disorders (sensitivity: 0.10-0.24, specificity: 0.97-0.99). It could determine the absence of a personality disorder (sensitivity: 0.81, specificity: 0.84, PPV: 0.77, NPV: 0.87 and κ-value: 0.65). The sensitivities and specificities for most specific personality disorders were good, but the PPVs for several specific Axis II classifications were low (PPV range: 0.06-0.77). The system was inaccurate in identifying the global assessment of functioning of patients (e.g. κ-values varied from 0.17-0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Generally, the system can be seen as a valid instrument for most DSM-IV classifications in primary care patients. It could assist healthcare professionals in the assessment and classification of mental disorders. Future research should include comparison to an independently administered structured clinical interview.