Skip to content

Diagnosis variability in psychiatry secondary to medical evaluation strategy.

Comparing diagnosis in mental health with different modes of interview.

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
REBEC
Registry ID
RBR-102v5xpf
Enrollment
Unknown
Registered
2021-02-11
Start date
2021-04-01
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2025-10-27

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

The diagnoses obtained through different models of diagnostic interviews (history taking) in psychiatry will be evaluated and compared. Such interviews will be evaluated as diagnostic tools and compared against LEAD (Longitudinal, Expert, All Data) obtained by an experienced psychiatrist. The following interviews will be studied: Free style interview (non-structured), semi-structured interview (“Standard for Clinicians' Interview in Psychiatry" - SCIP, with McGill MINI - Narrative experiences of

Interventions

Patients will be submitted to 4 diagnostic evaluations: Diagnosis through trained applicator for SCID, diagnosis through Free Interview (in a single evaluation), diagnosis through the semi structured
F04.711.513.603.500

Sponsors

Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro - Instituto de Psiquiatria da UFRJ
Lead Sponsor
Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa
Collaborator

Eligibility

Age
18 Years to 100 Years

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Patients: Being under the assistance of the same doctor or assistant group for, at least, one year. Agreeing to participate and signing the free and informed consignment term. Doctors:Agreeing to participate and signing the free and informed consignment term.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Subjects in mutism, intense negativism, with incomprehensible discourse or so agitated that is incapable to be submitted to a diagnose interview.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
We expect to show that the diagnoses proposed by the examiner change according to the interview model used in the same patient. For this purpose, the kappa agreement values will be measured for the diagnoses obtained for the following comparisons: Free vs structured interview; Free vs Semi structured interview; Structured interview vs semi structured interview. The sample was calculated taking into account the possibility of the occurrence of 17 diagnoses, predicting an average effect size (w = 0.3), which we hope to detect or reach enough power to discard.

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
The secondary outcome will be the assessment of the sensitivity and specificity of the Free, Structured and Semi-structured Interview compared to the gold standard. The calculation will be carried out through double entry contingency tables, using the formulas of sensitivity (true positive / true positive + false negative) and specificity (true negative / true negative + false positive). We hope to find increased sensitivity with the use of systematic interviews (structured and semi-structured) and greater specificity with the clinical freedom to investigate the patient (semi-structured and free). The results will be used to construct the ROC curve in order to evaluate the interviews as diagnostic methods. We believe that the free interview will present the worst overall performance, followed by structured interviews, with semi-structured interviews showing the best results.

Countries

Brazil

Contacts

Public ContactHelio Rocha Neto

Helio Gomes da Rocha Neto

hgrochaneto@gmail.com+5521998560288

Outcome results

None listed

Source: REBEC (via WHO ICTRP)