Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T17:26:16.228Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of self-report screening instruments for common mental disorders in Arabic-speaking adults

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2022

A. De Graaff ,
P. Cuijpers ,
M. Leeflang ,
I. Sferra ,
J. Uppendahl ,
M. Sijbrandij  and
R. De Vries
A. De Graaff*
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Clinical, Neuro- And Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam, Netherlands
P. Cuijpers
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Clinical, Neuro- And Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam, Netherlands
M. Leeflang
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam, Department Of Epidemiology And Data Science, Amsterdam, Netherlands
I. Sferra
Affiliation:
Sapienza University of Rome, Department Of Human Neurosciences, Rome, Italy
J. Uppendahl
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Clinical, Neuro- And Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam, Netherlands
M. Sijbrandij
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Clinical, Neuro- And Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam, Netherlands
R. De Vries
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Medical Library, Amsterdam, Netherlands
*
*Corresponding author.

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Introduction

Self-report questionnaires to screen for symptoms of common mental disorders (CMDs) are commonly used as inexpensive, easy-to-administer tools in research and clinical practice. However, their validity to detect the presence of any CMD across cultures and languages is unclear. Psychometrically sound and brief case-finding instruments are vital for the identification of individuals with mental health needs. With the increasing number of Arabic-speaking refugees in Europe, we aim to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of Arabic-language screening instruments.

Objectives

The aim of this systematic review/meta-analysis is to synthesize the diagnostic accuracy of self-report questionnaires to detect depression, anxiety and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in Arabic-speaking populations.

Methods

Five databases were searched (inception-January 2021) (PROSPERO: CRD42018070645) for studies on the diagnostic accuracy of brief questionnaires in Arabic-speaking populations, with a clinical interview as reference standard. Data on sensitivity/specificity were extracted/calculated. Multi-threshold meta-analyses were performed (R diagmeta package). Study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2.

Results

We included 32 studies (N=4042 participants) reporting on questionnaires targeting depression/anxiety (14 questionnaires), distress (2 questionnaires), and PTSD (1 questionnaire). Optimal thresholds were identified for the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS; cut-off 11, sensitivity 76.9%, specificity 85.1%), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) anxiety subscale (cut-off 7, sensitivity 81.9%, specificity 87.6%), depression subscale (cut-off 6, sensitivity 73.0%, specificity 88.6%), and Self-Reporting Questionnaire (SRQ-20; cut-off 8, sensitivity 86.0%, specificity 83.9%).

Conclusions

We present optimal thresholds that can be used by clinicians and researchers for the EPDS, HADS and SRQ-20. More research on Arabic-language questionnaires, especially those targeting PTSD, is needed.

Disclosure

No significant relationships.

Keywords

diagnostic test accuracyquestionnairesCommon mental disorderssensitivity/specificity
Type
Abstract
Information
European Psychiatry , Volume 65 , Special Issue S1: Abstracts of the 30th European Congress of Psychiatry , June 2022 , pp. S94 - S95
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the European Psychiatric Association
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.