Longitudinal Comparison of Three Depression Measures in Adult Cancer Patients
ABSTRACT CONTEXT: Although a number of depression measures have been used with cancer patients, longitudinal comparisons of several measures in the same patient population have been infrequently reported. OBJECTIVES: To compare the Hopkins Symptom Checklist 20-item depression scale, Short-Form 36 Mental Health Inventory five-item distress scale, and Patient Health Questionnaire nine-item depression scale in adults with cancer. METHODS: Of the 309 cancer patients enrolled in a telecare management trial for depression, 247 completed the three depression measures at both baseline and at three months and a retrospective assessment of global rating of change in depression at three months. Internal consistency and construct validity of each measure were evaluated. Responsiveness was compared by calculating standardized response means and receiver operating characteristic area under the curve, using global rating of change as the external comparator measure. Differences between intervention and control groups in depression change scores were compared by calculating standardized effect sizes (SESs). RESULTS: Internal reliability coefficients for the three measures were ≥0.77 at baseline and ≥0.84 at three months. Construct validity was supported with strong correlations of the depression measures among themselves, moderately strong correlations with other measures of mental health, and moderate correlations with vitality and disability. In terms of responsiveness, standardized response means for all measures significantly differentiated between three groups (improved, unchanged, and worse) as classified by patient-reported global rating of change in depression at three months. The three measures were able to detect a modest treatment effect in the intervention group compared with the control group (SES ranging from 0.21 to 0.43) in the full sample, whereas detecting a greater treatment effect in depressed participants with comorbid pain (SES ranging from 0.30 to 0.58). Finally, the three measures performed similarly in detecting patients with improvement. CONCLUSION: The Hopkins Symptom Checklist 20-item depression scale, Mental Health Inventory five-item distress scale, and Patient Health Questionnaire nine-item depression scale were established as reliable, valid, and responsive depression measures in adults with cancer. Given the current recommendations for measurement-based care, our study shows that clinicians treating depressed cancer patients have several measures from which to choose.
SourceAvailable from: Jingwei Wu[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Objective Depression and anxiety are prevalent in patients with chronic pain and adversely affect pain, quality of life, and treatment response. The purpose of this psychometric study was to determine the reliability and validity of the four-item Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression and anxiety scales in patients with chronic pain.DesignSecondary analysis of data from the Stepped Care to Optimize Pain care Effectiveness study, a randomized clinical trial of optimized analgesic therapy.SettingFive primary care clinics at the Roudebush VA Medical Center (RVAMC) in Indianapolis, Indiana.SubjectsTwo hundred forty-four primary care patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain.Methods All patients completed the four-item depression and anxiety scales from the PROMIS 29-item profile, as well as several other validated psychological measures. The minimally important difference (MID) using the standard error of measurement (SEM) was calculated for each scale, and convergent validity was assessed by interscale correlations at baseline and 3 months. Operating characteristics of the PROMIS measures for detecting patients who had probable major depression or were anxiety-disorder screen-positive were calculated.ResultsThe PROMIS scales had good internal reliability, and the MID (as represented by two SEMs) was 2 points for the depression scale and 2.5 points for the anxiety scale. Convergent validity was supported by strong interscale correlations. The optimal screening cutpoint on the 4- to 20-point PROMIS scales appeared to be 8 for both the depression and anxiety scales.Conclusions The PROMIS four-item depression and anxiety scales are reasonable options as ultra-brief measures for screening in patients with chronic pain.Pain Medicine 09/2014; DOI:10.1111/pme.12537 · 2.24 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Patients with advanced cancer commonly experience multiple somatic symptoms and declining functioning. Some highly prevalent symptoms also overlap with diagnostic symptom-criteria of depression. Thus, assessing depression in these patients can be challenging. We therefore investigated 1) the effect of different scoring-methods of depressive symptoms on detecting depression, and 2) the relationship between disease load and depression amongst patients with advanced cancer. The sample included 969 patients in the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative-Computer Symptom Assessment Study (EPCRC-CSA). Inclusion criteria were: incurable metastatic/locally advanced cancer and ≥18 years. Biomarkers and length of survival were registered from patient-records. Depression was assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and applying three scoring-methods: inclusive (algorithm scoring including the somatic symptom-criteria), exclusive (algorithm scoring excluding the somatic symptom-criteria) and sum-score (sum of all symptoms with a cut-off ≥8). Depression prevalence rates varied according to scoring-method: inclusive 13.7%, exclusive 14.9% and sum-score 45.3%. Agreement between the algorithm scoring-methods was excellent (Kappa=0.81), but low between the inclusive and sum scoring-methods (Kappa=0.32). Depression was significantly associated with more pain (OR-range: 1.09-1.19, p<0.001-0.04) and lower performance status (KPS-score, OR-range=0.68-0.72, p<0.001) irrespective of scoring-method. Depression was assessed using self-report, not clinical interviews. The scoring-method, not excluding somatic symptoms, had the greatest effect on assessment outcomes. Increasing pain and poorer than expected physical condition should alert clinicians to possible co-morbid depression. The large discrepancy in prevalence rates between scoring-methods reinforces the need for consensus and validation of depression definitions and assessment in populations with high disease load. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.Journal of Affective Disorders 11/2014; 173C:176-184. DOI:10.1016/j.jad.2014.11.006 · 3.71 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Computer-based depression interventions lacking live therapist support have difficulty engaging users. This study evaluated the usability, acceptability, credibility, therapeutic alliance and efficacy of a stand-alone multimedia, interactive, computer-based Problem Solving Treatment program (ePST™) for depression. The program simulated live treatment from an expert PST therapist, and delivered 6 ePST™ sessions over 9weeks. Twenty-nine participants with moderate-severe symptoms received the intervention; 23 completed a minimally adequate dose of ePST™ (at least 4 sessions). Program usability, acceptability, credibility, and therapeutic alliance were assessed at treatment midpoint and endpoint. Depressive symptoms and health-related functioning were assessed at baseline, treatment midpoint (4weeks), and study endpoint (10weeks). Depression outcomes and therapeutic alliance ratings were also compared to previously published research on live PST and computer-based depression therapy. Participants rated the program as highly usable, acceptable, and credible, and reported a therapeutic alliance with the program comparable to that observed in live therapy. Depressive symptoms improved significantly over time. These findings also provide preliminary evidence that ePST™ may be effective as a depression treatment. Larger clinical trials with diverse samples are indicated.Behavior therapy 05/2014; 45(3):358-75. DOI:10.1016/j.beth.2014.02.001 · 2.85 Impact Factor