ObjectivesAdvances in biopsychosocial science have underlined the importance of taking social history and life course perspective into consideration in primary care. For both clinical and research purposes, this study aims to develop and validate a standardised instrument measuring both material and social deprivation at an individual level.MethodsWe identified relevant potential questions regarding deprivation using a systematic review, structured interviews, focus group interviews and a think-aloud approach. Item response theory analysis was then used to reduce the length of the 38-item questionnaire and derive the deprivation in primary care questionnaire (DiPCare-Q) index using data obtained from a random sample of 200 patients during their planned visits to an ambulatory general internal medicine clinic. Patients completed the questionnaire a second time over the phone 3 days later to enable us to assess reliability. Content validity of the DiPCare-Q was then assessed by 17 general practitioners. Psychometric properties and validity of the final instrument were investigated in a second set of patients. The DiPCare-Q was administered to a random sample of 1898 patients attending one of 47 different private primary care practices in western Switzerland along with questions on subjective social status, education, source of income, welfare status and subjective poverty.ResultsDeprivation was defined in three distinct dimensions: material (eight items), social (five items) and health deprivation (three items). Item consistency was high in both the derivation (Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR20) =0.827) and the validation set (KR20 =0.778). The DiPCare-Q index was reliable (interclass correlation coefficients=0.847) and was correlated to subjective social status (rs=−0.539).ConclusionThe DiPCare-Q is a rapid, reliable and validated instrument that may prove useful for measuring both material and social deprivation in primary care.

This study highlights the gap existing in the field of STI prevention in terms of doctors' advice and patients' wishes.

Objectives-To follow up anxiety in a cohort of women screened for breast cancer. Methods-Within the framework of a pilot screening programme for breast cancer in the Canton of Vaud (Switzerland), a cohort of 924 participants aged 50-70 years were invited to answer questions on anxiety related to mammography screening. Anxiety was measured using a specific tool, the psychological consequences questionnaire (PCQ), and a new single item, direct question, breast cancer anxiety indicator (BCA). Participants were asked to fill in the questionnaire at four diVerent phases: at screening, before the result, and 2 and 8 weeks after the result. The final response rate was 93.7%. Predictors of anxiety at each phase were assessed using multiple regression. Results-Among those screening negative (94.7%), anxiety at screening was very low and remained so during the screening process. Among those screening false positive, anxiety was significantly higher 8 weeks after having received a negative diagnosis. Predictors of anxiety before screening were lower education and higher age, with a strong exogenous anxiety component. For subsequent phases, the initial anxiety score and education were the main determinants. Furthermore, a false positive result at screening was the most important predictor of anxiety 2 months after negative diagnosis. Anxiety measured with the BCA was strongly correlated with the PCQ. Conclusion-Anxiety was very low at screening and remained so during the process for negative women. Initial anxiety level was a strong predictor of anxiety during the entire process, up to 8 weeks after a negative result, and could be easily assessed using the BCA. The sustained higher anxiety level among those screening false positive is an undesirable side eVect of the programme. (J Med Screen 2001;8:213-219)