However, given the time burden of GPs and the numbers of patients with mental disorders, the search for clinically meaningful typologies of patients

according to their profile of mental disorders might be the most important target for the future. This is particularly true if we consider that it is unlikely that simplified classifications of mental disorders for use in primary care Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical will become available in the immediate future. Recognition If unselected patients are diagnosed independently, using appropriate diagnostic instruments for a given mental disorder, almost all studies- irrespective of the type of diagnosis considered- come to the same conelusion: mental disorders are largely underrecognized in primary care. GPs fail to recognize mental disorders, particularly when the Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical task is to make a specific diagnosis, whereas the more unspecific task of determining whether a given patient has at least some form of mental disorder (“mental health caseness”) seems to be somehow

better. Although improvement in diagnosis has been the target of countless campaigns over the past two decades on all levels (patients, doctors, and the public), for example, in depressive disorders, improved rates of caseness and diagnostic Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical recognition are rare or at best quite moderate. The upper limit of the correct recognition of depressive disorders is at most somewhere between 50% and 70%, if threshold major depressive disorders or nicotine dependence are considered. For diagnoses that have received less attention, such as GAD, eating disorders, substance abuse disorders, and somatoform disorders, recognition rates are usually in the range of 30% to 50%. Crude comparisons over the past two decades in regions with campaigns to improve recognition have SRT1720 purchase revealed some,

albeit moderate, Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical effect. However, Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical some studies have also pointed out that using recognition rates as a measure of the quality of doctors’ diagnostic decisions might be misleading and suggested that it is inappropriate to assume that patients will have a better outcome if they are diagnosed and treated. As noted and discussed recently by Goldberg56 and Hôfler and Wittchen,57 higher recognition rates might occur at the expense of doctors’ oversensitivity and increased willingness to diagnose mental disorders at the expense of specificity. Obviously, many patients who clearly fail to meet criteria for depression according to the ICD-10 or the DSM-TV receive a diagnosis of depression by the doctors. The ongoing controversies very of lowering the criteria thresholds for MD and/or defining new forms of subthreshold depressive disorders (brief recurrent depression, mixed anxiety/depression, etc) could have added to this problem. However, this tendency toward increased willingness to assign depression diagnoses is not without danger. As noted by Hôfler and Wittchen,57 it remains open, for example, whether established treatments for MD are as effective in these subthreshold manifestations.