Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorBramness, Jørgen Gustav
dc.contributor.authorHjellvik, Vidar
dc.contributor.authorHøye, Anne
dc.contributor.authorTesli, Martin Steen
dc.contributor.authorHaram, Marit
dc.contributor.authorNystad, Wenche
dc.contributor.authorKrokstad, Steinar
dc.date.accessioned2024-08-02T08:12:23Z
dc.date.available2024-08-02T08:12:23Z
dc.date.created2024-06-03T14:31:28Z
dc.date.issued2024
dc.identifier.citationBMC Public Health 24, 1330 (2024)en_US
dc.identifier.issn1471-2458
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3144190
dc.description.abstractBackground Mental health problems, and major depression in particular, are important public health issues. Following trends in the prevalence of major depression is difficult because of the costs and complications of diagnostic interviews and general population self-report health surveys. Scandinavian countries, however, have several central, population-based health registries. We aimed to investigate how well these registries capture the epidemiology of major depression in the population. Methods In two Norwegian regional surveys of general population health, each repeated after 10 years, responders were asked to report depressive symptoms using the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL) or the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Data were linked to three central health registries capturing contact with primary care, specialist care and prescriptions for antidepressants, to investigate how well these registries reflected self-reported depressive symptoms. Results Most responders scored low on Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), but 10% and 13%, respectively, scored above cut-off, with only minor changes between the two survey times. Females scored higher than males. Older people scored lower than younger, and a social gradient was visible. Around 12% of those who scored above the cut-off on either scale were recorded in the central health registries during the following year. This correlation was highest in primary care data, followed by prescription data and lowest in specialist care. Females were more often recorded in registries (p < 0.001), as were younger people (p < 0.001). Conclusions There was a strong association between scores on screening for major depression in the general population surveys and being recorded in central health registries. There was a low sensitivity of these registries. and there was some variation in how sensitive the central health registries were in picking up depression, especially for males and older people. However, the stability of the measures over time suggests we may get an impression of the prevalence of major depression in the general population by using data from the central health registries. A combination of primary care data, prescription data and specialist care data have a higher sensitivity.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherBMCen_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleThe epidemiology of major depression among adults in Norway: an observational study on the concurrence between population surveys and registry data – a NCDNOR projecten_US
dc.title.alternativeThe epidemiology of major depression among adults in Norway: an observational study on the concurrence between population surveys and registry data – a NCDNOR projecten_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.source.volume24en_US
dc.source.journalBMC Public Healthen_US
dc.source.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12889-024-18754-w
dc.identifier.cristin2272979
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal