References of "Nabbe, P"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailOne consensual depression diagnosis tool to serve many countries: a challenge! A RAND/UCLA methodology
Nabbe, P.; Le Reste, J. Y.; Guillou-Landreat, M. et al

in BMC Research Notes (2018), 11(1), 4

From a systematic literature review (SLR), it became clear that a consensually validated tool was needed by European General Practitioner (GP) researchers in order to allow multi-centred collaborative ... [more ▼]

From a systematic literature review (SLR), it became clear that a consensually validated tool was needed by European General Practitioner (GP) researchers in order to allow multi-centred collaborative research, in daily practice, throughout Europe. Which diagnostic tool for depression, validated against psychiatric examination according to the DSM, would GPs select as the best for use in clinical research, taking into account the combination of effectiveness, reliability and ergonomics? A RAND/UCLA, which combines the qualities of the Delphi process and of the nominal group, was used. GP researchers from different European countries were selected. The SLR extracted tools were validated against the DSM. The Youden index was used as an effectiveness criterion and Cronbach's alpha as a reliability criterion. Ergonomics data were extracted from the literature. Ergonomics were tested face-to-face. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 153 (1 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailWhich DSM validated tools for diagnosing depression are usable in primary care research? A systematic literature review
Nabbe, P.; Le Reste, J. Y.; Guillou-Landreat, M. et al

in European Psychiatry (2016), 39

IntroductionDepression occurs frequently in primary care. Its broad clinical variability makes it difficult to diagnose. This makes it essential that family practitioner (FP) researchers have validated ... [more ▼]

IntroductionDepression occurs frequently in primary care. Its broad clinical variability makes it difficult to diagnose. This makes it essential that family practitioner (FP) researchers have validated tools to minimize bias in studies of everyday practice. Which tools validated against psychiatric examination, according to the major depression criteria of DSM-IV or 5, can be used for research purposes? [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 149 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailWhat research agenda could be generated from the European General Practice Research Network concept of Multimorbidity in Family Practice?
Le Reste, J. Y.; Nabbe, P.; Lingner, H. et al

in BMC family practice (2015), 16(1), 125

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity is an intuitively appealing, yet challenging, concept for Family Medicine (FM). An EGPRN working group has published a comprehensive definition of the concept based on a ... [more ▼]

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity is an intuitively appealing, yet challenging, concept for Family Medicine (FM). An EGPRN working group has published a comprehensive definition of the concept based on a systematic review of the literature which is closely linked to patient complexity and to the biopsychosocial model. This concept was identified by European Family Physicians (FPs) throughout Europe using 13 qualitative surveys. To further our understanding of the issues around multimorbidity, we needed to do innovative research to clarify this concept. The research question for this survey was: what research agenda could be generated for Family Medicine from the EGPRN concept of Multimorbidity? METHODS: Nominal group design with a purposive panel of experts in the field of multimorbidity. The nominal group worked through four phases: ideas generation phase, ideas recording phase, evaluation and analysis phase and a prioritization phase. RESULTS: Fifteen international experts participated. A research agenda was established, featuring 6 topics and 11 themes with their corresponding study designs. The highest priorities were given to the following topics: measuring multimorbidity and the impact of multimorbidity. In addition the experts stressed that the concept should be simplified. This would be best achieved by working in reverse: starting with the outcomes and working back to find the useful variables within the concept. CONCLUSION: The highest priority for future research on multimorbidity should be given to measuring multimorbidity and to simplifying the EGPRN model, using a pragmatic approach to determine the useful variables within the concept from its outcomes. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 91 (1 UL)