Why the study?
Does the CES-D scale accurately screen for Major Depressive Disorder in low-income women attending primary care clinics?
Does the CES-D scale accurately screen for Major Depressive Disorder in low-income women attending primary care clinics?
While the CES-D has adequate sensitivity and specificity, its low positive predictive value makes it inefficient for routine depression screening in low-income women in primary care.
Low PPV limits CES-D efficiency for routine screening in low-income primary care women; leaves open validation of adjusted thresholds in similar cohorts.
OBJECTIVE: Depressive disorders are among the most common medical disorders seen in primary care practice. The Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression (CES-D) scale is one of the measures commonly suggested for detecting depression in these clinics. However, to our knowledge, there have been no previous studies examining the validity of the CES-D among low-income women attending primary care clinics. METHOD: Low-income women attending public primary care clinics (n = 179, ages 20-77) completed the CES-D and the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for the DSM-IV (DIS-IV). RESULTS: The results supported the validity of the CES-D. The standard cut-score of 16 and above yielded a sensitivity of .95 and specificity of .70 in predicting Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). However, over two-thirds of those who screened positive did not meet criteria for MDD (positive predictive value = .28). The standard cut-score appears valid, but inefficient for depression screening in this population. An elevated cut-score of 34 yielded a higher specificity (.95) and over 50 percent of the patients who screened positive had a MDD (positive predictive value = .53), but at great cost to sensitivity (.45). CONCLUSION: Results indicated that the CES-D appears to be as valid for low-income, minority women as for any other demographic group examined in the literature. Despite similar validity, the CES-D appears to be inadequate for routine screening in this population. The positive predictive value remains very low no matter which cut-scores are used. The costs of the false positive rates could be prohibitive, especially in similar public primary care settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thomas et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: