Article

The patient health questionnaire, Japanese version: validity according to the mini-international neuropsychiatric interview-plus.

The Clinical Psychology Course, Graduate School of Niigata Seiryo University 1-5939, Suido Cho, Cyuoku, Niigata City, Niigata 951-8121, Japan.
Psychological Reports (Impact Factor: 0.44). 01/2008; 101(3 Pt 1):952-60. DOI: 10.2466/PR0.101.7.952-960
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To validate the Japanese version of the Patient Health Questionnaire against the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview-Plus in Japan 131 patients in 4 primary care settings and 2 general hospital settings participated. These patients completed the Patient Health Questionnaire and returned it to their physician within 48 hr. Subsequently, the subjects underwent a diagnostic evaluation interview based on the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview-Plus by an interviewer blind to the results of the Patient Health Questionnaire screening. The Patient Health Questionnaire diagnosis was characterized using kappa values between 0.70 and 1.0 for Somatoform Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Panic Disorder, Bulimia Nervosa, Alcohol Abuse/Dependence, and Premenstrual Disorder. Sensitivities, specificities, and negative predictive values were very good (between 0.84 and 1.0) for the first 4 diagnoses but not Alcohol Abuse/Dependence or Premenstrual Disorder, as were the Positive predictive values (between 0.78 and 1.0). Findings show very good concordance of the Japanese version of the Patient Health Questionnaire with the Japanese version of the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview-Plus.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
184 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To elucidate whether low job control and low social support at work have synergistic interaction on mental health. The synergistic interaction was also analyzed after stratification by high and low job demands.
    International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 05/2014; · 2.10 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background The Overall Anxiety Severity and Impairment Scale is a brief generic measure for anxiety that encompasses frequency and intensity as well as behavioral and functional aspects of anxiety. This study was conducted to elucidate aspects of reliability, validity, and interpretability, such as equivalence of factor loadings across non-clinical and clinical populations, convergence and discriminance of related variables, and performance of detecting diagnostic and medical status of anxiety disorders. Methods Non-clinical and clinical Japanese populations were taken from a panelist pool registered with an internet survey company (total n=2830; 619 panic disorder, 576 for social anxiety disorder, 645 for obsessive-compulsive disorder, a 619 for major depressive disorder, and 371 for non-disorder panelists). Conventional measures of anxiety, depression, mental health and measures for discriminant validity were administered in addition to OASIS. Results Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses indicated good fit to data for the one-factor model of OASIS. Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis showed the equivalence of the factor loadings between those of non-clinical and clinical subsamples. The OASIS reliability was confirmed by internal consistency and test–retest coefficients. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses showed that OASIS and conventional anxiety measures have fair performance for detecting diagnostic and medical status as anxiety disorders. Limitations Participants were limited to a Japanese population of people who had registered themselves at an internet survey company. Conclusions Along with useful information to interpret OASIS, the results suggest the reliability and validity of OASIS in Japanese populations. These results also suggest cross-cultural validity.
    Journal of Affective Disorders 01/2015; 170:217–224. · 3.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Self-stigma has been highlighted and researched in relation to patients with chronic illnesses, as it may have a negative impact on their treatment adherence. However, self-stigma has not yet been investigated in patients with type 2 diabetes. In order to evaluate the extent to which patients with type 2 diabetes experience self-stigma, which may result in their poor self-care management, there is a need for a specific tool to measure self-stigma in patients with type 2 diabetes. This study assessed the psychometric properties of a Japanese version of the Self-Stigma Scale (SSS-J) in patients with type 2 diabetes.Methods The reliability and validity of the SSS-J were evaluated using a consecutive sample of 210 outpatients with type 2 diabetes from university hospitals and from hospitals or clinics specializing in diabetes treatment. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to assess the factors theorized by the original Self-Stigma Scale. Cronbach¿s alpha for internal reliability and Pearson¿s correlations for construct validity were used for evaluation of psychometric properties. Pearson¿s correlations for test-retest reliability of the SSS-J were also performed.ResultsConfirmatory factor analysis verified the three-factor structure of the SSS-J, consisting of cognitive, affective, and behavioral subscales. The model fit indices were as follows: the goodness-of-fit index was 0.78, the adjusted goodness-of-fit index was 0.70, the comparative fit index was 0.88, and the root mean square error of approximation was 0.07. Cronbach¿s alpha of the SSS-J was 0.96 (cognitive: alpha¿=¿0.92; affective: alpha¿=¿0.93; behavioral: alpha¿=¿0.83). The SSS-J was associated with self-esteem (r¿=¿¿0.43, p¿<¿0.01), self-efficacy (r¿=¿¿0.38, p¿<¿0.01), and depressive symptoms (r¿=¿0.39, p¿<¿0.01). The 2-week test-retest reliability demonstrated satisfactory stability (r¿=¿0.76, p¿<¿0.01).Conclusions The SSS-J is reliable and valid for assessment of the extent of self-stigma in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.
    Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 12/2014; 12(1):179. · 2.10 Impact Factor