Anxiety Screening

Author:

O’Connor Elizabeth A.1,Henninger Michelle L.1,Perdue Leslie A.1,Coppola Erin L.1,Thomas Rachel G.1,Gaynes Bradley N.2

Affiliation:

1. Kaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, Oregon

2. Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill

Abstract

ImportanceAnxiety is commonly seen in primary care and associated with substantial burden.ObjectiveTo review the benefits and harms of screening and treatment for anxiety and the accuracy of instruments to detect anxiety among primary care patients.Data SourcesMEDLINE, PsychINFO, Cochrane library through September 7, 2022; references of existing reviews; ongoing surveillance for relevant literature through November 25, 2022.Study SelectionEnglish-language original studies and systematic reviews of screening or treatment compared with control conditions and test accuracy studies of a priori–selected screening instruments were included. Two investigators independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles for inclusion. Two investigators independently rated study quality.Data Extraction and SynthesisOne investigator abstracted data; a second checked accuracy. Meta-analysis results were included from existing systematic reviews where available; meta-analyses were conducted on original research when evidence was sufficient.Main Outcomes and MeasuresAnxiety and depression outcomes; global quality of life and functioning; sensitivity and specificity of screening tools.ResultsOf the 59 publications included, 40 were original studies (N = 275 489) and 19 were systematic reviews (including ≈483 studies [N≈81 507]). Two screening studies found no benefit for screening for anxiety. Among test accuracy studies, only the Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) GAD-2 and GAD-7 screening instruments were evaluated by more than 1 study. Both screening instruments had adequate accuracy for detecting generalized anxiety disorder (eg, across 3 studies the GAD-7 at a cutoff of 10 had a pooled sensitivity of 0.79 [95% CI, 0.69 to 0.94] and specificity of 0.89 [95% CI, 0.83 to 0.94]). Evidence was limited for other instruments and other anxiety disorders. A large body of evidence supported the benefit of treatment for anxiety. For example, psychological interventions were associated with a small pooled standardized mean difference of −0.41 in anxiety symptom severity in primary care patients with anxiety (95% CI, −0.58 to −0.23]; 10 RCTs [n = 2075]; I2 = 40.2%); larger effects were found in general adult populations.Conclusions and RelevanceEvidence was insufficient to draw conclusions about the benefits or harms of anxiety screening programs. However, clear evidence exists that treatment for anxiety is beneficial, and more limited evidence indicates that some anxiety screening instruments have acceptable accuracy to detect generalized anxiety disorder.

Publisher

American Medical Association (AMA)

Subject

General Medicine

Reference94 articles.

1. Symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder among adults: United States, 2019.;Terlizzi;NCHS Data Brief,2020

2. Quality of life in the anxiety disorders: a meta-analytic review.;Olatunji;Clin Psychol Rev,2007

3. Anxiety disorders in primary care: prevalence, impairment, comorbidity, and detection.;Kroenke;Ann Intern Med,2007

4. Human and economic burden of generalized anxiety disorder.;Hoffman;Depress Anxiety,2008

5. Economic burden of anxiety disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.;Konnopka;Pharmacoeconomics,2020

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3