Burns Depression Scale Today (BDST): A validation study of BDST against the reference standard of PHQ-9
Background: Case finding for low mood is essential in primary care, but it is time-consuming using current depression inventories. The Burns Depression Scale Today (BDST) is a short, simple inventory which assesses mood for today, and we aimed to validate it in this study. Materials and Methods: Con...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
2023-07-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_9_23 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Background:
Case finding for low mood is essential in primary care, but it is time-consuming using current depression inventories. The Burns Depression Scale Today (BDST) is a short, simple inventory which assesses mood for today, and we aimed to validate it in this study.
Materials and Methods:
Consecutive patients with emotional distress seen in a single primary care clinic by one of the authors over 22 months were eligible for this retrospective audit (N = 160). Multiple visits (N = 421) from the same patient were included in the study. The index test was BDST, which assesses the patient’s mood for today. The reference standard was the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), which assesses mood over the past 2 weeks. PHQ-9 had a cut-off point of ≥10 and BDST had a cut-off point of ≥6 for a significant mood issue.
Results:
The median age of patients was 35 years, and 63% of the cohort were women. The median BDST score was 8, indicative of moderately low mood, and the median PHQ-9 score was 15, indicative of moderately severe depression. For patients with a BDST score ≥6, the likelihood ratio of a positive test was 2.67. The sensitivity was 85% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 89%–96%) and the specificity was 68% (95% CI: 60%–76%). The area under the curve was 84% (95% CI: 80%–87%).
Conclusion:
This audit validates BDST against PHQ-9 and finds it an excellent case-finding tool compared to PHQ-9. This is the first validation study of BDST. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2249-4863 2278-7135 |