Article

Longitudinal Comparison of Three Depression Measures in Adult Cancer Patients

School of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
Journal of pain and symptom management (Impact Factor: 2.74). 08/2012; 45(1). DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2011.12.284
Source: PubMed

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.

3 Followers
 · 
99 Views
 · 
0 Downloads
  • Source
    • "This tool is based on the diagnostic criteria for depressive disorder. This is a reliable and valid measure of depression [38] and has been used extensively, including among cancer populations [39]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There are over 25 million people worldwide living with or beyond cancer and this number is increasing. Cancer survivors face a range of problems following primary treatment. One of the most frequently reported and distressing symptoms experienced by cancer survivors is fatigue. There is growing support for survivors who are experiencing problems after cancer treatment to engage in supported self-management. To date there is some evidence of effective interventions to manage fatigue in this population; however, to our knowledge there are no online resources that draw on this information to support self-management of fatigue. This paper describes the protocol for an exploratory randomized controlled trial of an online intervention to support self-management of cancer-related fatigue after primary cancer treatment.Methods/design: This is a parallel-group two-armed (1:1) exploratory randomized controlled trial including 125 cancer survivors experiencing fatigue (scoring >=4 on a unidimensional 11-point numeric rating scale for fatigue intensity) within five years of primary treatment completion with curative intent. Participants will be recruited from 13 NHS Trusts across the UK and randomized to either the online intervention (RESTORE), or a leaflet comparator (Macmillan Cancer Backup, Coping with Fatigue). The primary outcome is a change in Perceived Self-Efficacy for Fatigue Self-Management (as measured by the Perceived Self-Efficacy for Fatigue Self-Management Instrument). Secondary outcomes include impact on perception and experience of fatigue (measured by the Brief Fatigue Inventory), and quality of life (measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General and the Personal Wellbeing Index). Outcome measures will be collected at baseline, 6 weeks (completion of intervention), and 3 months. Process evaluation (including telephone interviews with recruiting staff and participants) will determine acceptability of the intervention and trial processes. Data from this trial will be used to refine the intervention and contribute to the design of an effectiveness trial. This intervention will be expanded to address other cancer-related problems important to cancer survivors following primary cancer treatment.Trial registration: ISRCTN67521059.
    Trials 06/2013; 14(1):184. DOI:10.1186/1745-6215-14-184 · 2.12 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aims and background. To summarize current knowledge on psychopharmacological and psychotherapeutic options for patients with breast cancer and comorbid depression, starting from the psychiatric viewpoint. Issues on diagnostic boundaries of depression and outcome measures are raised. Methods. We completed a literature review from the last 30 years (until March 2012) using PubMed by pairing the key words: 'breast cancer and depression treatment' (about 1431 works, including 207 reviews), 'breast cancer and antidepressants' (about 305 works, including 66 reviews), and in particular 'selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and breast cancer' (38 works, including 10 reviews) and 'breast cancer and psychotherapy' (603 works, including 84 reviews). Papers in the English language were selected, including recent reviews. Results. There is little evidence for the superiority of any one specific intervention with pharmacological options or psychotherapy. The heterogeneity of assessment criteria, the small number of subjects collected in systematic studies, the difficulty in adopting standardized outcome measures, and the limited numbers of available drugs with a favorable side effect profile are the main limitations that emerge from the literature. No conclusive findings are available on mid-term/long-term treatment strategies, or when depression is part of a bipolar disorder. Conclusions. Further research is necessary to define the most appropriate approach to depression when it occurs in comorbidity with breast cancer. A more accurate definition of the clinical phenotypes of depression in the special population of patients with breast cancer is suggested as a key issue.
    Tumori 01/2013; 99(5):623-33. DOI:10.1700/1377.15313 · 1.09 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aims and background. To summarize current knowledge on psychopharmacological and psychotherapeutic options for patients with breast cancer and comorbid depression, starting from the psychiatric viewpoint. Issues on diagnostic boundaries of depression and outcome measures are raised. Methods. We completed a literature review from the last 30 years (until March 2012) using PubMed by pairing the key words: 'breast cancer and depression treatment' (about 1431 works, including 207 reviews), 'breast cancer and antidepressants' (about 305 works, including 66 reviews), and in particular 'selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and breast cancer' (38 works, including 10 reviews) and 'breast cancer and psychotherapy' (603 works, including 84 reviews). Papers in the English language were selected, including recent reviews. Results. There is little evidence for the superiority of any one specific intervention with pharmacological options or psychotherapy. The heterogeneity of assessment criteria, the small number of subjects collected in systematic studies, the difficulty in adopting standardized outcome measures, and the limited numbers of available drugs with a favorable side effect profile are the main limitations that emerge from the literature. No conclusive findings are available on mid-term/long-term treatment strategies, or when depression is part of a bipolar disorder. Conclusions. Further research is necessary to define the most appropriate approach to depression when it occurs in comorbidity with breast cancer. A more accurate definition of the clinical phenotypes of depression in the special population of patients with breast cancer is suggested as a key issue.
    Tumori 09/2013; 99(5):623-33. DOI:10.1700/1377.15313. · 1.09 Impact Factor
Show more