The revision and factor analytic evaluation of the German version of the depression literacy scale (D-Lit-R German).

BACKGROUND: Depression is a common mental health disorder and the second leading cause of disability worldwide. In people with depression, low depression literacy, which could be characterized by a poor recognition of depressive symptoms and less knowledge about the availability of treatment options, can hinder adequate therapy for depression. Nevertheless, questionnaires measuring depression literacy in Germany are rare. Consequently, for the present study, the German Depression Literacy Scale (D-Lit) has been revised and evaluated. METHODS: First, a team of clinical psychologists revised the D-Lit German scale. Next, cognitive interviews were conducted with patients with depression to improve the comprehensibility of the scale items. Our revision of the D-Lit-R German scale was then subjected to an anonymous online study. Finally, the data went through an exploratory factor analysis, and sociodemographic subgroup analyses were performed. RESULTS: N = 524 individuals (age 18-80) completed the D-Lit-R German scale and a questionnaire on their sociodemographic data. Cronbach´s alpha was estimated as α = .72, and McDonald's Omega (categorical) was estimated as ω = .77. The mean Item difficulty was M = .75 (SD = .15). An EFA was performed for a unidimensional model, a 5-factor-model and at last a 3-factor-model. The 5-factorial model showed a good model fit (χ2emp,WLSMV(131) = 92.424, p > .05; CFI = 1, RMSEA = 0, SRMR = .07) but was rejected since the content of the potential 5 factors could not be determined. The 3-factor model showed an arguable model fit. The Chi2 test was significant (χ2emp,WLSMV(168) = 199.912, p < .05), but the CFI and the RMSEA met an acceptable model fit (CFI = .990, RMSEA of .019, 90% CI[.003, .029]). Substantively, the three factors were defined as (1) Distractors and other symptoms, (2) Depressive symptoms, and (3) Pharmacological and psychotherapeutic depression treatment. Furthermore, there were significant differences in sum scores regarding the subgroup's gender, treatment for mental health problems, depression treatment, experience with depression, and different career fields. CONCLUSIONS: The D-Lit-R German scale is a time-efficient scale to assess some aspects of the depression literacy construct that can be easily applied. Since there was no perfect model fit, it is recommended to continue to revise the scale. Further evaluation studies could ask for knowledge of the etiological factors of depression. Future studies could then use this instrument to convey depression literacy. This instrument could assess the growth of knowledge after psychoeducational interventions in different settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was preregistered at the platform osf.io ( https://osf.io/49xdh ). REGISTRATION NUMBER: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/49XDH Date of registration: 28 April 2022.

Combining the GP's assessment and the PHQ-9 questionnaire leads to more reliable and clinically relevant diagnoses in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Screening questionnaires are not sufficient to improve diagnostic quality of depression in primary care. The additional consideration of the general practitioner's (GP's) assessment could improve the accuracy of depression diagnosis. The aim of this study was to examine whether the GP rating supports a reliable depression diagnosis indicated by the PHQ-9 over a period of three months. METHODS: We performed a secondary data analysis from a previous study. PHQ-9 scores of primary care patients were collected at the time of recruitment (t1) and during a follow-up 3 months later (t2). At t1 GPs independently made a subjective assessment whether they considered the patient depressive (yes/no). Two corresponding groups with concordant and discordant PHQ-9 and GP ratings at t1 were defined. Reliability of the PHQ-9 results at t1 and t2 was assessed within these groups and within the entire sample by Cohen's Kappa, Pearson's correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: 364 consecutive patients from 12 practices in the region of Upper Bavaria/Germany participated in this longitudinal study. 279 patients (76.6%) sent back the questionnaire at t2. Concordance of GP rating and PHQ-9 at t1 led to higher replicability of PHQ-9 results between t1 and t2. The reliability of PHQ-9 was higher in the concordant subgroup (κ = 0.507) compared to the discordant subgroup (κ = 0.211) (p = 0.064). The Bland-Altman Plot showed that the deviation of PHQ-9 scores at t1 and t2 decreased by about 15% in the concordant subgroup. Pearson's correlation coefficient between PHQ-9 scores at t1 and t2 increased significantly if the GP rating was concordant with the PHQ-9 at t1 (r = 0.671) compared to the discordant subgroup (r = 0.462) (p = 0.044). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of PHQ-9 and GP rating might improve diagnostic decision making regarding depression in general practices. PHQ-9 positive results might be more reliable and accurate, when a concordant GP rating is considered.

Misperception of sleep is associated with intrinsic motivation toward thinking about sleep.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Misperception of sleep, the underestimation of total sleep time and overestimation of sleep onset latency (SOL) relative to objective measures, is often found in people with sleep disturbances. Theories of insomnia have proposed that perceived sleeplessness triggers excessive intention and effort to sleep, ironically disturbing the normal initiation of sleep. The current study tested this specific association between (mis)perception of sleep and intrinsic motivation to think about sleep. METHODS: The sample (n = 74) covered students and community living in Munich and surrounds with ages between 18 and 30 years. We assessed the subjective and objective sleep of participants using a sleep diary and actigraphy. Participants also completed a decision-making task (the pay-per-view task), where they had to decide between thinking about sleep vs. eating. As these options were associated with a variable monetary reward, participants typically experienced a conflict between their preferred topic and the reward for their choice. RESULTS: Multilevel logistic regression analyses showed that participants with greater SOL misperception (i.e., longer subjective relative to objective SOL) forgo a greater reward for the opportunity to think about sleep. LIMITATIONS: The non-clinical nature of our sample may limit the implication of the findings for clinical levels of insomnia. CONCLUSIONS: Results support the cognitive model of insomnia, suggesting that perception of sleeplessness is associated with higher intrinsic motivation to engage in sleep-related thinking.