Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T21:13:33.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The validity of clinicians’ diagnoses: Is it bread and butter?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2022

A. Stevens*
Affiliation:
University of Tübingen / Medizinisches Begutachtungsinstitut, Medicolegal Assesmment, Tubingen, Germany

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Major depression has become one of the most frequent diagnoses in Germany. It is also quite prominent in cases referred for medicolegal assessment in insurance, compensation or disability claims. This report evaluates the validity of clinicians’ diagnoses of major depression in a sample of claimants. In 2015, n = 127 consecutive cases were examined for medicolegal assessment. All had been diagnosed with major depression by clinicians. All testees underwent a psychiatric interview, a physical examination, they answered questionnaires for depressive symptoms according to DSM-5, embitterment disorder, post-concussion syndrome (PCS) and unspecific somatic complaints. Performance and symptom validity tests were administered. Only 31% of the sample fulfilled the diagnostic criteria for DSM-5 major depression according to self-report, while none did so according to psychiatric assessment. Negative response bias was found in 64% of cases, feigned neurologic symptoms in 22%. Symptom exaggeration was indiscriminate rather than depression-specific. By self-report (i.e. symptom endorsement in questionnaires), 64% of the participants qualified for embitterment disorder and 93% for PCS. In conclusion, clinicians’ diagnoses of depression seem frequently erroneous. The reasons are improper assessment of the diagnostic criteria, confusion of depression with bereavement or embitterment and a failure to assess for response bias.

Disclosure

No significant relationships.

Type
Educational
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the European Psychiatric Association
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.