Agreement Between Medico-Administrative Database Algorithms and Survey-Based Diagnoses for Depression and Anxiety in Older Adults

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the concordance between depression and anxiety case definitions derived from algorithms based on medico-administrative data and structured interviews aligned with the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) criteria in older adults. Methods: We analyzed data from 1405 primary care older adults (≥65 years) from the Étude sur la Santé des Aînés (ESA)-Services cohort (2011–2013) in Quebec, Canada, who had available survey and medico-administrative data. Cases of depression and anxiety were identified using algorithms incorporating combinations of hospitalization records, physician-visit claims, and medication claims for antidepressants or anxiolytics. The agreement was assessed with the kappa statistics (κ), and the algorithms’ sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated using the case definitions derived from the DSM-IV-aligned ESA-Services interviews as the gold standard. Results: Agreements between the algorithms and the interviews were fair (κ: 0.06–0.22) for depression gooand slight (κ: 0.02–0.09) for anxiety. The algorithms had low sensitivity (2–39.7% for depression and 1.4–39.9% for anxiety) but high specificity (84.5–99.6% for depression and 73–99.2% for anxiety), depending on the algorithm. Conclusions: The agreement between algorithms based on administrative data and DSM-IV-aligned interviews for anxiety or depressive disorders was low. The two methods identified older adults with different characteristics. Despite these discrepancies, algorithms with high specificity provide valuable insights into healthcare utilization patterns associated with these disorders.