↓ Skip to main content

The theoretical and practical determination of clinical cut-offs for the British Sign Language versions of PHQ-9 and GAD-7

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The theoretical and practical determination of clinical cut-offs for the British Sign Language versions of PHQ-9 and GAD-7
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12888-016-1078-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel A. Belk, Mark Pilling, Katherine D. Rogers, Karina Lovell, Alys Young

Abstract

The PHQ-9 and the GAD-7 assess depression and anxiety respectively. There are standardised, reliability-tested versions in BSL (British Sign Language) that are used with Deaf users of the IAPT service. The aim of this study is to determine their appropriate clinical cut-offs when used with Deaf people who sign and to examine the operating characteristics for PHQ-9 BSL and GAD-7 BSL with a clinical Deaf population. Two datasets were compared: (i) dataset (n = 502) from a specialist IAPT service for Deaf people; and (ii) dataset (n = 85) from our existing study of Deaf people who self-reported having no mental health difficulties. Parameter estimates, with the precision of AUC value, sensitivity, specificity, positive predicted value (ppv) and negative predicted value (npv), were carried out to provide the details of the clinical cut-offs. Three statistical choices were included: Maximising (Youden: maximising sensitivity + specificity), Equalising (Sensitivity = Specificity) and Prioritising treatment (False Negative twice as bad as False Positive). Standard measures (as defined by IAPT) were applied to examine caseness, recovery, reliable change and reliable recovery for the first dataset. The clinical cut-offs for PHQ-9 BSL and GAD-7 BSL are 8 and 6 respectively. This compares with the original English version cut-offs in the hearing population of 10 and 8 respectively. The three different statistical choices for calculating clinical cut-offs all showed a lower clinical cut-off for the Deaf population with respect to the PHQ-9 BSL and GAD-7 BSL with the exception of the Maximising criteria when used with the PHQ-9 BSL. Applying the new clinical cut-offs, the percentage of Deaf BSL IAPT service users showing reliable recovery is 54.0 % compared to 63.7 % using the cut-off scores used for English speaking hearing people. These compare favourably with national IAPT data for the general population. The correct clinical cut-offs for the PHQ-9 BSL and GAD-7 BSL enable meaningful measures of clinical effectiveness and facilitate appropriate access to treatment when required.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Master 7 12%
Other 6 10%
Professor 3 5%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 17 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 12%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Linguistics 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 18 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 July 2017.
All research outputs
#2,114,178
of 22,899,952 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#738
of 4,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,055
of 311,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#16
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,899,952 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,711 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 311,569 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.