↓ Skip to main content

The 'help' question doesn't help when screening for major depression: external validation of the three-question screening test for primary care patients managed for physical complaints

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, October 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
38 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 'help' question doesn't help when screening for major depression: external validation of the three-question screening test for primary care patients managed for physical complaints
Published in
BMC Medicine, October 2011
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-9-114
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrick Lombardo, Paul Vaucher, Nader Haftgoli, Bernard Burnand, Bernard Favrat, François Verdon, Thomas Bischoff, Lilli Herzig

Abstract

Major depression, although frequent in primary care, is commonly hidden behind multiple physical complaints that are often the first and only reason for patient consultation. Major depression can be screened by two validated questions that are easier to use in primary care than the full Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV) criteria. A third question, called the 'help' question, improves the specificity without apparently decreasing the sensitivity of this screening procedure. We validated the abbreviated screening procedure for major depression with and without the 'help' question in primary care patients managed for a physical complaint.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Netherlands 1 3%
Unknown 36 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 18%
Researcher 6 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Other 9 24%
Unknown 5 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 39%
Psychology 8 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 13%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 20 June 2012.
All research outputs
#6,242,460
of 22,655,397 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,372
of 3,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,911
of 139,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#20
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,655,397 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,395 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 139,116 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.