Common mental disorders and mortality in the West of Scotland Twenty-07 Study: comparing the General Health Questionnaire and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale
While various measures of common mental disorders (CMD) have been found to be associated with mortality, a comparison of how different measures predict mortality may improve our understanding of the association. This paper compares how the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the 30-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-30) predict all cause and cause-specific mortality.
Data on 2547 men and women from two cohorts, aged approximately 39 and 55 years, from the West of Scotland Twenty-07 Study who were followed up for mortality over an average of 18.9 (SD 5.0) years. Scores were calculated for HADS depression (HADS-D), HADS Anxiety (HADS-A) and GHQ-30. Cox Proportional Hazards Models were used to determine how each CMD measure predicted mortality.
After adjusting for serious physical illness, smoking, social class, alcohol, obesity, pulse rate and living alone, HRs (95% CI) per SD increase in score for all-cause mortality were: 1.15 (1.07 to 1.25) for HADS-D; 1.13 (1.04 to 1.23) for GHQ-30 and 1.05 (0.96 to 1.14) for HADS-A. After the same adjustments, cardiovascular disease mortality was also related to HADS-D (HR 1.24 (1.07 to 1.43)), to GHQ-30 (HR 1.24 (1.11 to 1.40)) and to HADS-A (HR 1.15 (1.01 to 1.32)); respiratory mortality to GHQ-30 (HR 1.33 (1.13 to 1.55)) and mortality from other causes, excluding injuries, to HADS-D (HR 1.28 (1.05 to 1.55)).
There were associations between CMD and both all-cause and cause-specific mortality which were broadly similar for GHQ-30 and HADS-D and were still present after adjustment for important confounders and mediators.
SourceAvailable from: Frank Doyle[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Objective: Recently controversy has surrounded the dimensionality of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). We assessed the dimensionality of the HADS in a large international sample of patients with ischaemic heart disease (IHD) using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The analysis of an international sample enabled the current study to broaden knowledge gained from existing studies with small, regional samples. Methods: Data from the HeartQoL study of patients with IHD (n=6,241, 22 countries speaking 15 languages) were analysed using CFA. Results: CFA indicated a hierarchical bifactor solution, with mostly strong item loadings on a general factor (explaining 73% of the variance), and weak to very weak loadings on orthogonal depression (16%) and anxiety (11%) subscales. The bifactor model fit the data significantly better than both the original bidimensional model and Dunbar’s higher-order three-factor model. Conclusion: These results, from a large international sample of patients with IHD, suggest that the HADS scale is dominated by a single general distress factor. Although the best CFA model fit was a hierarchical bifactor solution, the subscales had weak item loadings, providing little psychometric evidence of the ability of the HADS to differentiate anxiety and depressive symptoms. It is argued that clinicians and researchers working with patients with IHD should abandon the HADS and use alternative measures of depression and anxiety.Journal of Psychosomatic Research 08/2014; 77(2). DOI:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2014.05.005 · 2.84 Impact Factor