Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:48:18.226Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MINI International Neuropsychiatric Schedule: clinical utility and patient acceptance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2020

Narsimha R Pinninti ,
Harry Madison ,
Erica Musser  and
David Rissmiller
Narsimha R Pinninti*
Affiliation:
SOM-UMDNJ, 2250 Chapel Avenue West, Cherry Hill NJ, 08002, USA
Harry Madison
Affiliation:
SOM-UMDNJ, 2250 Chapel Avenue West, Cherry Hill NJ, 08002, USA
Erica Musser
Affiliation:
SOM-UMDNJ, 2250 Chapel Avenue West, Cherry Hill NJ, 08002, USA
David Rissmiller
Affiliation:
SOM-UMDNJ, 2250 Chapel Avenue West, Cherry Hill NJ, 08002, USA
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (N.R. Pinninti).
Get access

Abstract

Objective. –

Clinical diagnosis has been shown to be unreliable compared to structured diagnostic schedules. However, clinicians rarely use structured diagnostic schedules due to concerns about the feasibility in clinical practice and about patient acceptance. Mini International Neuropsychiatric Schedule is a short diagnostic instrument validated against SCID and CIDI but its feasibility and patient acceptance has not been studied.

Subjects and methods. –

One hundred and eleven patients admitted to a partial program were administered Mini International Neuropsychiatric Schedule and the interview was timed. A short questionnaire was administered to assess patients’ views about the interview. For a subgroup of patients, diagnoses by both open interviews and Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) were available. These were compared to look for agreement in primary diagnoses and co-morbid conditions.

Results. –

MINI took an average of 16.4 min to administer. Patients’ views of MINI were positive. It was considered comprehensive enough to cover all patient symptoms and at the same time not unduly lengthy. Patients were not bothered by the interview format. There was disagreement between MINI primary diagnosis and open diagnosis in 42% cases. In 33% the disagreement was of substantial clinical significance. MINI diagnosed more co-morbid conditions (average 2.05 compared to 0.5 in open interview).

Conclusions. –

MINI is a short diagnostic interview schedule that can be easily incorporated into routine clinical interviews. It has good acceptance by patients.

Keywords

MINIClinical diagnosisStructured diagnosisPatient acceptanceComorbidity
Type
Original articles
Information
European Psychiatry , Volume 18 , Issue 7 , November 2003 , pp. 361 - 364
Copyright
Copyright © Éditions scientifiques et médicales Elsevier SAS.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Endicott, J. Good diagnoses require good diagnosticians: collecting and integrating the data. Am J Med Genet 2001;105(1):48–9.3.0.CO;2-M>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kutchins, HKirk, SA. The reliability of DSM-111: a critical review. Soc Work Res Abstr 1986;4:3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basco, MRBostic, JQDavies, DRush, JWitte, BHendrikse, W, et al. Methods to improve diagnostic accuracy in a community mental health setting. Am J Psychiatry 2000;157(10):1599–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shear, MKGreeno, CKang, JLudewig, DFrank, ESwertz, HA, et al. Diagnosis of non-psychotic patients in community clinics. Am J Psychiatry 2000;157:581–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, MMattia, JI. Psychiatric diagnosis in clinical practice: is comorbidity being missed? Compr Psychiatry 1999;40:181–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
p. 7–26. Psychiatric evaluation of adults. American Psychiatric Association, Practice guidelines for the treatment of psychiatric disorders, 2000.Google Scholar
First, MBSpitzer, RLGibbon, MWilliams, JBW. Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV-TR axis I disorders. Research version. New York: Biometrics Research, New York State Psychiatric Institute; 2001 Non-patient edition, (SCID-I/NP).Google Scholar
Wittchen, H-U, et al. Interrater reliability of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI): results of the Multicenter WHO/ADAMHA Field Trials (Wave I). In: Stefanis, CNRabavilas, ADSoldatos, CR, editors. Psychiatry: a world perspective, vol. 1. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica; 1990. p.125–32.Google Scholar
Finlay, WMLyons, E. Methodological issues in interviewing and using self-report questionnaires with people with mental retardation. Psychol Assess 2001;13(3):319–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wyngaarden, M. Interviewing mentally retarded persons: issues and strategies. Monogr Am Assoc Ment Defic 1981;4:107–13.Google Scholar
Sheehan, DVLecrubier, YSheehan, KHAmorim, PJanavs, JWeiller, E, et al. The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.): the development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. J Clin Psychiatry 1998;59(Suppl 20):22–33 [quiz 34–57].Google ScholarPubMed
Sheehan, DVLecrubier, YSheehan, KHJanavs, JWeiller, EKeskiner, A, et al. The validity of the Mini International Interview (MINI) according to the SCID-P and its reliability. Eur Psychiatry 1997;12:232–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lecrubier, YSheehan, DVWeiller, EAmorim, PBonora, ISheehan, KH, et al. The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI). A short diagnostic structured interview: reliability and validity according to the CIDI. Eur Psychiatry 1997;12:224–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, RDSpitzer, RLVaughan, SC, et al. Assessing the subjective experience of being a participant in psychiatric research. Am J Psychiatry 2001;158:319–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zimmerman, MMattia, JI. Principal and additional DSM-IV disorders for which outpatients seek treatment. Psychiatr Serv 2000;51(10):1299–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.