The brevity, strong psychometric properties, and ability to discriminate DSM-IV cases from non-cases make the K10 and K6 attractive for use in general-purpose health surveys. The scales are already being used in annual government health surveys in the US and Canada as well as in the WHO World Mental Health Surveys. Routine inclusion of either the K10 or K6 in clinical studies would create an important, and heretofore missing, crosswalk between community and clinical epidemiology.

Data are reported on a series of short-form (SF) screening scales of DSM-III-R psychiatric disorders developed from the World Health Organization's Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). A multi-step procedure was used to generate CIDI-SF screening scales for each of eight DSM disorders from the US National Comorbidity Survey (NCS). This procedure began with the subsample of respondents who endorsed the CIDI diagnostic stem question for a given disorder and then used a series of stepwise regression analyses to select a subset of screening questions to maximize reproduction of the full CIDI diagnosis. A small number of screening questions, between three and eight for each disorder

Objective: To provide normative data on the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10), a scale that is being increasingly used for clinical and epidemiological purposes. Method: The National Survey of Mental Health And Well‐Being was used to provide normative comparative data on symptoms, disability, service utilisation and diagnosis for the range of possible K10 scores. Results: The K10 is related in predictable ways to these other measures. Implications: The K10 is suitable to assess morbidity in the population, and may be appropriate for use in clinical practice.

Background. Two new screening scales for psychological distress, the K6 and K10, have been developed but their relative efficiency has not been evaluated in comparison with existing scales.Method. The Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-Being, a nationally representative household survey, administered the WHO Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) to assess 30-day DSM-IV disorders. The K6 and K10 were also administered along with the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), the current de facto standard of mental health screening. Performance of the three screening scales in detecting CIDI/DSM-IV mood and anxiety disorders was assessed by calculating the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs). Stratum-Specific Likelihood Ratios (SSLRs) were computed to help produce individual-level predicted probabilities of being a case from screening scale scores in other samples.Results. The K10 was marginally better than the K6 in screening for CIDI/DSM-IV mood and anxiety disorders (K10 AUC: 0·90, 95%CI: 0·89–0·91 versus K6 AUC: 0·89, 95%CI: 0·88–0·90), while both were significantly better than the GHQ-12 (AUC: 0·80, 95%CI: 0·78–0·82). The SSLRs of the K10 and K6 were more informative in ruling in or out the target disorders than those of the GHQ-12 at both ends of the population spectrum. The K6 was more robust than the K10 to subsample variation.Conclusions. While the K10 might outperform the K6 in screening for severe disorders, the K6 is preferred in screening for any DSM-IV mood or anxiety disorder because of its brevity and consistency across subsamples. Precision of individual-level prediction is greatly improved by using polychotomous rather than dichotomous classification.

BackgroundDepression and anxiety disorders are common and treatable with cognitive behavior therapy (CBT), but access to this therapy is limited.ObjectiveReview evidence that computerized CBT for the anxiety and depressive disorders is acceptable to patients and effective in the short and longer term.MethodSystematic reviews and data bases were searched for randomized controlled trials of computerized cognitive behavior therapy versus a treatment or control condition in people who met diagnostic criteria for major depression, panic disorder, social phobia or generalized anxiety disorder. Number randomized, superiority of treatment versus control (Hedges g) on primary outcome measure, risk of bias, length of follow up, patient adherence and satisfaction were extracted.Principal Findings22 studies of comparisons with a control group were identified. The mean effect size superiority was 0.88 (NNT 2.13), and the benefit was evident across all four disorders. Improvement from computerized CBT was maintained for a median of 26 weeks follow-up. Acceptability, as indicated by adherence and satisfaction, was good. Research probity was good and bias risk low. Effect sizes were non-significantly higher in comparisons with waitlist than with active treatment control conditions. Five studies comparing computerized CBT with traditional face-to-face CBT were identified, and both modes of treatment appeared equally beneficial.ConclusionsComputerized CBT for anxiety and depressive disorders, especially via the internet, has the capacity to provide effective acceptable and practical health care for those who might otherwise remain untreated.Trial RegistrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12610000030077

Mental disorders are common in Australia. Many people have more than one class of mental disorder. Mental disorders are associated with substantial disability, yet many people with mental disorders do not seek help for their mental health problems.

The conclusions drawn in the original meta-analysis are now supported: iCBT for the anxiety and depressive disorders is effective, acceptable and practical health care.

No abstract