Diagnostic interview for genetic studies (DIGS): inter-rater and test-retest reliability of the French version.

The National Institute of Mental Health developed the semi-structured Diagnostic Interview for Genetic Studies (DIGS) for the assessment of major mood and psychotic disorders and their spectrum conditions. The DIGS was translated into French in a collaborative effort of investigators from sites in France and Switzerland. Inter-rater and test-retest reliability of the French version have been established in a clinical sample in Lausanne. Excellent inter-rater reliability was found for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression, and unipolar schizoaffective disorder while fair inter-rater reliability was demonstrated for bipolar schizoaffective disorder. Using a six-week test-retest interval, reliability for all diagnoses was found to be fair to good with the exception of bipolar schizoaffective disorder. The lower test-retest reliability was the result of a relatively long test-retest interval that favored incomplete symptom recall. In order to increase reliability for lifetime diagnoses in persons not currently affected, best-estimate procedures using additional sources of diagnostic information such as medical records and reports from relatives should supplement DIGS information in family-genetic studies. Within such a procedure, the DIGS appears to be a useful part of data collection for genetic studies on major mood disorders and schizophrenia in French-speaking populations.

Parent-child agreement and prevalence estimates of diagnoses in childhood: direct interview versus family history method.

Diagnostic information on children is typically elicited from both children and their parents. The aims of the present paper were to: (1) compare prevalence estimates according to maternal reports, paternal reports and direct interviews of children [major depressive disorder (MDD), anxiety and attention-deficit and disruptive behavioural disorders]; (2) assess mother-child, father-child and inter-parental agreement for these disorders; (3) determine the association between several child, parent and familial characteristics and the degree of diagnostic agreement or the likelihood of parental reporting; (4) determine the predictive validity of diagnostic information provided by parents and children. Analyses were based on 235 mother-offspring, 189 father-offspring and 128 mother-father pairs. Diagnostic assessment included the Kiddie-schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (K-SADS) (offspring) and the Diagnostic Interview for Genetic Studies (DIGS) (parents and offspring at follow-up) interviews. Parental reports were collected using the Family History - Research Diagnostic Criteria (FH-RDC). Analyses revealed: (1) prevalence estimates for internalizing disorders were generally lower according to parental information than according to the K-SADS; (2) mother-child and father-child agreement was poor and within similar ranges; (3) parents with a history of MDD or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) reported these disorders in their children more frequently; (4) in a sub-sample followed-up into adulthood, diagnoses of MDD, separation anxiety and conduct disorder at baseline concurred with the corresponding lifetime diagnosis at age 19 according to the child rather than according to the parents. In conclusion, our findings support large discrepancies of diagnostic information provided by parents and children with generally lower reporting of internalizing disorders by parents, and differential reporting of depression and ADHD by parental disease status. Follow-up data also supports the validity of information provided by adolescent offspring.

Inter-informant agreement and prevalence estimates for mood syndromes: Direct interview vs. family history method.

BACKGROUND: The use of the family history method is recommended in family studies as a type of proxy interview of non-participating relatives. However, using different sources of information can result in bias as direct interviews may provide a higher likelihood of assigning diagnoses than family history reports. The aims of the present study were to: 1) compare diagnoses for threshold and subthreshold mood syndromes from interviews to those relying on information from relatives; 2) test the appropriateness of lowering the diagnostic threshold and combining multiple reports from the family history method to obtain comparable prevalence estimates to the interviews; 3) identify factors that influence the likelihood of agreement and reporting of disorders by informants. METHODS: Within a family study, 1621 informant-index subject pairs were identified. DSM-5 diagnoses from direct interviews of index subjects were compared to those derived from family history information provided by their first-degree relatives. RESULTS: 1) Inter-informant agreement was acceptable for Mania, but low for all other mood syndromes. 2) Except for Mania and subthreshold depression, the family history method provided significantly lower prevalence estimates. The gap improved for all other syndromes after lowering the threshold of the family history method. 3) Individuals who had a history of depression themselves were more likely to report depression in their relatives. LIMITATIONS: Low proportion of affected individuals for manic syndromes and lack of independence of data. CONCLUSIONS: The higher likelihood of reporting disorders by affected informants entails the risk of overestimation of the size of familial aggregation of depression.

The Cornella Health Interview Survey Follow-Up (CHIS.FU) Study: design, methods, and response rate

Background: The aim of this report is to describe the main characteristics of the design, including response rates, of the Cornella Health Interview Survey Follow-up Study. Methods: The original cohort consisted of 2,500 subjects (1,263 women and 1,237 men) interviewed as part of the 1994 Cornella Health Interview Study. A record linkage to update the address and vital status of the cohort members was carried out using, first a deterministic method, and secondly a probabilistic one, based on each subject's first name and surnames. Subsequently, we attempted to locate the cohort members to conduct the phone follow-up interviews. A pilot study was carried out to test the overall feasibility and to modify some procedures before the field work began. Results: After record linkage, 2,468 (98.7%) subjects were successfully traced. Of these, 91 (3.6%) were deceased, 259 (10.3%) had moved to other towns, and 50 (2.0%) had neither renewed their last municipal census documents nor declared having moved. After using different strategies to track and to retain cohort members, we traced 92% of the CHIS participants. From them, 1,605 subjects answered the follow-up questionnaire. Conclusion: The computerized record linkage maximized the success of the follow-up that was carried out 7 years after the baseline interview. The pilot study was useful to increase the efficiency in tracing and interviewing the respondents.