Table 4. Summary of the Effect of Feedback from Screening on Rates of Treatment1

Author, Year (Reference): Johnstone and Goldberg, 1976 (14)3
Participants Treated—Intervention Group, % (n/n): NR
Participants Treated—Control Group, % (n/n): NR
Absolute Difference (95% CI), percentage points: NR
P Value2: NR

Author, Year (Reference): Moore et al., 1978 (15)3
Participants Treated—Intervention Group, % (n/n): NR
Participants Treated—Control Group, % (n/n): NR
Absolute Difference (95% CI), percentage points: NR
P Value2: NR

Author, Year (Reference): Linn and Yager, 1980 (16)4
Participants Treated—Intervention Group, % (n/n): 13 (3/24)
Participants Treated—Control Group, % (n/n): 8 (4/50)
Absolute Difference (95% CI), percentage points: 5 (-11 to 20)
P Value2:

Author, Year (Reference): Zung and King, 1983 (17)5
Participants Treated—Intervention Group, % (n/n): NR
Participants Treated—Control Group, % (n/n): NR
Absolute Difference (95% CI), percentage points: NR
P Value2:

Author, Year (Reference): Magruder-Habib et al., 1990 (18)5
Participants Treated—Intervention Group, % (n/n): 3 months: 37 (18/48)
Participants Treated—Control Group, % (n/n): 27 (14/52)
Absolute Difference (95% CI), percentage points: 11 (-8 to 29)
P Value2: > 0.2

Author, Year (Reference): Callahan et al., 1994 (19)5
Participants Treated—Intervention Group, % (n/n): 26 (26/100)
Participants Treated—Control Group, % (n/n): 8 (6/75)
Absolute Difference (95% CI), percentage points: 18 (7 to 29)
P Value2: 0.002

Author, Year (Reference): Callahan et al., 1996 (21)5
Participants Treated—Intervention Group, % (n/n): 46 (58/127)
Participants Treated—Control Group, % (n/n): 29 (27/94)
Absolute Difference (95% CI), percentage points: 17 (4 to 30)
P Value2: 0.001

Author, Year (Reference): Dowrick, 1995 (20)3
Participants Treated—Intervention Group, % (n/n): 27 (14/51)
Participants Treated—Control Group, % (n/n): 21 (13/63)
Absolute Difference (95% CI), percentage points: 7 (-9 to 23)
P Value2:

Author, Year (Reference): Lewis et al., 1996 (22)3
Participants Treated—Intervention Group, % (n/n): NR
Participants Treated—Control Group, % (n/n): NR
Absolute Difference (95% CI), percentage points: NR
P Value2:

Author, Year (Reference): Reifler et al., 1996 (23)3
Participants Treated—Intervention Group, % (n/n): NR
Participants Treated—Control Group, % (n/n): NR
Absolute Difference (95% CI), percentage points: NR
P Value2:

Author, Year (Reference): Williams et al., 1999 (11)3
Participants Treated—Intervention Group, % (n/n): 45 (35/77)
Participants Treated—Control Group, % (n/n): 43 (16/38)
Absolute Difference (95% CI), percentage points: 2 (NR)
P Value2: > 0.2

Author, Year (Reference): Katzelnick et al., 2000 (12)
Participants Treated—Intervention Group, % (n/n): 82 (179/218)
Participants Treated—Control Group, % (n/n): 32 (61/89)
Absolute Difference (95% CI), percentage points: 50 (41 to 58)
P Value2: < 0.001

Author, Year (Reference): Wells et al., 2000 (24)3
Participants Treated—Intervention Group, % (n/n): 59 (NR)
Participants Treated—Control Group, % (n/n): 50 (NR)
Absolute Difference (95% CI), percentage points: 9 (NR)
P Value2: 0.006

Author, Year (Reference): Whooley et al., 2000 (25)3
Participants Treated—Intervention Group, % (n/n): 36 (59/162)
Participants Treated—Control Group, % (n/n): 43 (72/169)
Absolute Difference (95% CI), percentage points: -6 (-17 to 4)
P Value2: > 0.2

Author, Year (Reference): Rost et al., 2001 (13)
Participants Treated—Intervention Group, % (n/n): 69 (NR)
Participants Treated—Control Group, % (n/n): 28 (NR)
Absolute Difference (95% CI), percentage points: 41 (NR)
P Value2:

1All figures are rounded to nearest percentage. NR = not reported and cannot be calculated from available data.
2P values were not always reported.
3Denominator is patients who screened positive.
4Denominator is all patients.
5Denominator is patients who screened positive and were confirmed to have major depression on diagnostic interview.


Return to Document