Scandinavian journal of caring sciences · 2025
Hoarding Disorder Screening Scales Implemented in Primary Health Care: Systematic Review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dos Santos Carolina Boppré, Dos Santos Costa Danielle Elizabeth, da Fonseca Graziele Goretti Portela, Junior Pedro Docusse, de Mello Ana Lucia Schaefer Ferreira, de Rossi Figueiredo Daniela
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To identify hoarding disorder (HD) screening scales implemented in primary health care and their features.
METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook and preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. Indexed articles were searched in PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, Virtual Health Library, American Psychological Association PsycInfo, and EMBASE. HD screening scale studies in the primary healthcare scenario were included. The DSM-5 criteria and the interprofessional follow-up by the health team were assessed. The Loney scale was applied to verify the studies' methodological quality.
RESULTS: Seventeen articles and 11 scales were identified for HD screening in primary healthcare; 52.9% of the studies were cross-sectional. DSM-5 criteria were used in 76.5%; 45.4% were self-assessed; 29.4% were informed and followed up by the healthcare team. One study was classified as having good methodological quality.
CONCLUSION: The findings evidenced several HD screening scales as diagnosis and management tools at the primary healthcare level. However, few studies mentioned their follow-up and the effective contribution of the health team. It seems there is a gap in including social determinants approaches to HD screening.
METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook and preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. Indexed articles were searched in PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, Virtual Health Library, American Psychological Association PsycInfo, and EMBASE. HD screening scale studies in the primary healthcare scenario were included. The DSM-5 criteria and the interprofessional follow-up by the health team were assessed. The Loney scale was applied to verify the studies' methodological quality.
RESULTS: Seventeen articles and 11 scales were identified for HD screening in primary healthcare; 52.9% of the studies were cross-sectional. DSM-5 criteria were used in 76.5%; 45.4% were self-assessed; 29.4% were informed and followed up by the healthcare team. One study was classified as having good methodological quality.
CONCLUSION: The findings evidenced several HD screening scales as diagnosis and management tools at the primary healthcare level. However, few studies mentioned their follow-up and the effective contribution of the health team. It seems there is a gap in including social determinants approaches to HD screening.