Marco Borbotti

Clinical vs. structured interview on anxiety and affective disorders by primary care physicians. Understanding diagnostic discordance

AIMS To assess in a national sample the ability of GPs to detect psychiatric disorders using a clinical vs. a standardized interview and to characterize the patients that were falsely diagnosed with an anxiety or affective disorder. METHODS This is a national, cross-sectional, epidemiological survey, carried out by GPs on a random sample of their patients. The GPs were randomly divided into two groups. Apart from the routine clinical interview, the experimental group (group A) had to administer the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI). RESULTS Data was collected by 143 GPs. 17.2% of all patients had a clinical diagnosis of an affective disorder, and 25.4% a clinical diagnosis of an anxiety disorder. In group A, the number of clinical diagnoses was about twice that of MINI diagnoses for affective disorders and one and a half times that for anxiety disorders. The majority of clinical diagnoses were represented by MINI subsyndromal cases (52.3%). Females showed a higher OR of being over-detected by GPs with anxiety disorders or of not being diagnosed with an affective disorder. Being divorced/separated/widowed increased the OR of over-detection of affective and anxiety disorders. The OR of over-detection of an affective or an anxiety disorder was higher for individuals with a moderate to poor quality of life. CONCLUSIONS In the primary care a gap exists between clinical and standardized interviews in the detection of affective and anxiety disorders. Some experiential and social factors can increase this tendency. The use of a psycho.