Athlete students lead a healthier life than their non-athlete peers: A cross-sectional study of health behaviors, depression, and perceived health status among university students

The Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders (PRIME-MD) was developed as a screening instrument but its administration time has limited its clinical usefulness. To determine if the self-administered PRIME-MD Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) has validity and utility for diagnosing mental disorders in primary care comparable to the original clinician-administered PRIME-MD. Criterion standard study undertaken between May 1997 and November 1998. Eight primary care clinics in the United States. Of a total of 3000 adult patients (selected by site-specific methods to avoid sampling bias) assessed by 62 primary care physicians (21 general internal medicine, 41 family practice), 585 patients had an interview with a mental health professional within 48 hours of completing the PHQ. Patient Health Questionnaire diagnoses compared with independent diagnoses made by mental health professionals; functional status measures; disability days; health care use; and treatment/referral decisions. A total of 825 (28%) of the 3000 individuals and 170 (29%) of the 585 had a PHQ diagnosis. There was good agreement between PHQ diagnoses and those of independent mental health professionals (for the diagnosis of any 1 or more PHQ disorder, kappa = 0.65; overall accuracy, 85%; sensitivity, 75%; specificity, 90%), similar to the original PRIME-MD. Patients with PHQ diagnoses had more functional impairment, disability days, and health care use than did patients without PHQ diagnoses (for all group main effects, P<.001). The average time required of the physician to review the PHQ was far less than to administer the original PRIME-MD (<3 minutes for 85% vs 16% of the cases). Although 80% of the physicians reported that routine use of the PHQ would be useful, new management actions were initiated or planned for only 117 (32%) of the 363 patients with 1 or more PHQ diagnoses not previously recognized. Our study suggests that the PHQ has diagnostic validity comparable to the original clinician-administered PRIME-MD, and is more efficient to use.

Depression is a common health problem, ranking third after cardiac and respiratory diseases as a major cause of disability. There is evidence to suggest that university students are at higher risk of depression, despite being a socially advantaged population, but the reported rates have shown wide variability across settings. To explore the prevalence of depression in university students. PubMed, PsycINFO, BioMed Central and Medline were searched to identify studies published between 1990 and 2010 reporting on depression prevalence among university students. Searches used a combination of the terms depression, depressive symptoms, depressive disorders, prevalence, university students, college students, undergraduate students, adolescents and/or young adults. Studies were evaluated with a quality rating. Twenty-four articles were identified that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Reported prevalence rates ranged from 10% to 85% with a weighted mean prevalence of 30.6%. The results suggest that university students experience rates of depression that are substantially higher than those found in the general population. Study quality has not improved since 1990. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Clinicians and those in health sciences are frequently called upon to measure subjective states such as attitudes, feelings, quality of life, educational achievement and aptitude, and learning style in their patients. This fifth edition of Health Measurement Scales enables these groups to both develop scales to measure non-tangible health outcomes, and better evaluate and differentiate between existing tools.<br> <br> Health Measurement Scales is the ultimate guide to developing and validating measurement scales that are to be used in the health sciences. The book covers how the individual items are developed; various biases that can affect responses (e.g. social desirability, yea-saying, framing); various response options; how to select the best items in the set; how to combine them into a scale; and finally how to determine the reliability and validity of the scale. It concludes with a discussion of ethical issues that may be encountered, and guidelines for reporting the results of the scale development process. Appendices include a comprehensive guide to finding existing scales, and a brief introduction to exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, making this book a must-read for any practitioner dealing with this kind of data.<br>