Table 3. Summary of the Effect of Feedback from Screening on Rates of Diagnosis1

Author, Year (Reference) Participants with Diagnosis Absolute Difference (95% CI) P Value2
Intervention Group Control Group
% (n/n) percentage points
Johnstone and Goldberg, 1976 (14)3 NR NR NR NR
Moore et al., 1978 (15)3 56 (28/50) 22 (10/46) 34 (16.7 to 52) < 0.001
Linn and Yager, 1980 (16)4 29 (7/24) 8 (4/50) 21 (1 to 41)  
Zung and King, 1983 (17)5 NR NR NR NR
Magruder-Habib et al., 1990 (18)5 25 (12/48) 8 (4/52) 17 (3 to 32) 0.018
Callahan et al., 1994 (19)5 32 (32/100) 12 (9/75) 20 (8 to 32) 0.002
Callahan et al., 1996 (21)5 87 (111/128) 40 (38/94) 46 (35 to 58) 0.001
Dowrick, 1995 (20)3 35 (18/51) 21 (13/63) 15 (-2 to 31)  
Lewis et al., 1996 (22)3 NR NR NR NR
Reifler et al., 1996 (23) NR NR NR NR
Williams et al., 1999 (11)3 39 (30/77) 29 (11/38) 10 (-8 to 28) > 0.05
Katzelnick et al., 2000 (12) NR NR NR NR
Wells et al., 2000 (24)3 NR NR NR NR
Whooley et al., 2000 (25)3 35 (56/162) 34 (58/169) 1 (-9 to 10) > 0.2
Rost et al., 2001 (13) NR NR NR NR

1All figures are rounded to nearest value. 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