PMID- 22154899 OWN - NLM STAT- MEDLINE DCOM- 20120628 LR - 20191210 IS - 1555-2101 (Electronic) IS - 0160-6689 (Linking) VI - 73 IP - 3 DP - 2012 Mar TI - Web-based assessment of depression in patients treated in clinical practice: reliability, validity, and patient acceptance. PG - 333-8 LID - 10.4088/JCP.10m06519 [doi] AB - OBJECTIVE: Calls for the use of standardized assessments in clinical practice have been increasing. A Web-based administration of outcome assessments offers several potential advantages over paper-and-pencil assessments, such as patient convenience, reduced missing data, reduced costs, automatic scoring, and generation of large databases. The present study from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessments and Services (MIDAS) project evaluated the acceptability, reliability, and validity of a Web-based administration of a depression scale in patients receiving ongoing care for depression. METHOD: From June 2009 to July 2010, fifty-three depressed outpatients completed a Web-based and a paper version of the Clinically Useful Depression Outcome Scale (CUDOS). The vast majority of patients met DSM-IV criteria for either major depressive disorder (n = 36) or bipolar disorder (n = 9). Patients were also asked to complete a brief 6-question survey of the acceptability of the 2 modes of scale administration. At the time of the visit, the patients' psychiatrist completed the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and rated patients on the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) scale and Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF). RESULTS: The correlation between the Web-administered and paper versions of the CUDOS was high (P < .001). The mean scores were similar on the paper and Internet administrations. The internal consistency of the paper and Internet administrations of the CUDOS was high (both values, Cronbach alpha = .93), and all item-scale correlations for the paper and Internet versions were significant (median for paper administration = 0.76; median for Internet administration = 0.74). The paper and Internet versions of the CUDOS were equally correlated with clinicians' ratings on the MADRS, CGI-S, and GAF (all P values < .001). Patients reported high levels of satisfaction with Internet administration and preferred this method of monitoring outcome to paper administration in the office (all P values < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this first study of the use of a Web-based system of monitoring outcome in routine clinical practice supported the reliability and validity of Internet administration of a depression scale, and patients clearly preferred Internet administration to completion of a paper-and-pencil questionnaire in the office. CI - (c) Copyright 2012 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc. FAU - Zimmerman, Mark AU - Zimmerman M AD - Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Brown University School of Medicine, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island, USA. mzimmerman@lifespan.org FAU - Martinez, Jennifer H AU - Martinez JH LA - eng PT - Evaluation Study PT - Journal Article DEP - 20111101 PL - United States TA - J Clin Psychiatry JT - The Journal of clinical psychiatry JID - 7801243 SB - IM MH - Adult MH - Aged MH - Aged, 80 and over MH - Depression/*diagnosis MH - Female MH - Humans MH - *Internet MH - Male MH - Middle Aged MH - Outcome Assessment, Health Care/*methods MH - Patient Satisfaction/statistics & numerical data MH - Psychiatric Status Rating Scales/*standards/statistics & numerical data MH - Psychometrics/methods/statistics & numerical data MH - Reproducibility of Results MH - Rhode Island EDAT- 2011/12/14 06:00 MHDA- 2012/06/29 06:00 CRDT- 2011/12/14 06:00 PHST- 2010/08/23 00:00 [received] PHST- 2011/02/18 00:00 [accepted] PHST- 2011/12/14 06:00 [entrez] PHST- 2011/12/14 06:00 [pubmed] PHST- 2012/06/29 06:00 [medline] AID - 10.4088/JCP.10m06519 [doi] PST - ppublish SO - J Clin Psychiatry. 2012 Mar;73(3):333-8. doi: 10.4088/JCP.10m06519. Epub 2011 Nov 1.