XXXX and @entity146 in primary care attenders: A cross sectional study of the four-dimensional symptom questionnaire (4DSQ).

@entity1 @entity308 @entity147 @entity146
BACKGROUND: Detection of @entity146 in primary care is a complex issue. Distinctions between ' @entity147 and @entity146 depend on how disorder is conceptualized. Our aim was to explore two different conceptualizations by examining @entity1 ' scores on one-dimensional @entity308 measures and scores on the Four Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ), a measure that uniquely has separate dimensions for general distress and @entity308 . METHODS: This was a cross sectional study of 487 primary care @entity1 attending general clinics in Hampshire, UK. @entity1 completed the 4DSQ, @entity1 Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12) and the Hospital Anxiety and @entity308 Scale (HADS) whilst in the waiting room. RESULTS: The 4DSQ classified 26% (126/485) of @entity1 as having heightened distress levels and 8% (38/468) as possible cases of @entity308 . Casesness was consistently higher across the one-dimensional measures (PHQ-9: 16%, GHQ-12: 28%, HADS-D: 13%). Of those @entity1 deemed possible cases by the PHQ-9 (>= 10), the 4DSQ classified 91% (71/78) as having heightened distress and 44% (32/72) as possible cases of @entity308 . LIMITATIONS: The sample was predominately older and white, which may limit generalizability of the findings to more diverse @entity1 groups. There are limits to self-report measures in the assessment of complex diagnostic issues. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of a distinct general distress dimension alongside a dimension focusing on specific @entity308 symptomatology lowered the number of primary care @entity1 classified as possible cases of disorder. This view of symptoms may have implications for the targeting of existing treatments, and may be useful in guiding the development of novel self-management interventions.
