TY - JOUR
T1 - Patient-reported depression measures in cancer
T2 - A meta-review
AU - Wakefield, Claire E.
AU - Butow, Phyllis N.
AU - Aaronson, Neil A.
AU - Hack, Thomas F.
AU - Hulbert-Williams, Nicholas J.
AU - Jacobsen, Paul B.
N1 - Funding Information:
We would like to thank Eden G Robertson, Sanaa Mathur, and Alison L Young for their contributions to this research. We also acknowledge the contribution of all members of the International Psycho-Oncology Society Research Committee. Claire Wakefield is supported by a Career Development Fellowship from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (APP1067501) and an Early Career Development fellowship from the Cancer Institute of NSW (ID: 11/ECF/3–43). The Behavioural Sciences Unit is supported by the Kids with Cancer Foundation.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd.
PY - 2015/7/1
Y1 - 2015/7/1
N2 - The patient-reported depression measures that perform best in oncology settings have not yet been identified. We did a meta-review to integrate the findings of reviews of more than 50 depression measures used in adults with, or recovering from, any type of cancer. We searched Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, and grey literature from 1999 to 2014 to identify 19 reviews representing 372 primary studies. 11 reviews were rated as being of high quality (defined as meeting at least 20 criteria in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement). The Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS) was the most thoroughly evaluated measure, but was limited by cutpoint variability. The HADS had moderate screening utility indices and was least recommended in advanced cancer or palliative care. The Beck Depression Inventory was more generalisable across cancer types and disease stages, with good indices for screening and case finding. The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale was the best-weighted measure in terms of responsiveness. This meta-review provides a comprehensive overview of the strengths and limitations of available depression measures. It can inform the choice of the best measure for specific settings and purposes.
AB - The patient-reported depression measures that perform best in oncology settings have not yet been identified. We did a meta-review to integrate the findings of reviews of more than 50 depression measures used in adults with, or recovering from, any type of cancer. We searched Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, and grey literature from 1999 to 2014 to identify 19 reviews representing 372 primary studies. 11 reviews were rated as being of high quality (defined as meeting at least 20 criteria in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement). The Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS) was the most thoroughly evaluated measure, but was limited by cutpoint variability. The HADS had moderate screening utility indices and was least recommended in advanced cancer or palliative care. The Beck Depression Inventory was more generalisable across cancer types and disease stages, with good indices for screening and case finding. The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale was the best-weighted measure in terms of responsiveness. This meta-review provides a comprehensive overview of the strengths and limitations of available depression measures. It can inform the choice of the best measure for specific settings and purposes.
KW - Cancer research
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84937468626&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84937468626&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00168-6
DO - 10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00168-6
M3 - Review article
C2 - 26303561
AN - SCOPUS:84937468626
SN - 2215-0366
VL - 2
SP - 635
EP - 647
JO - The Lancet Psychiatry
JF - The Lancet Psychiatry
IS - 7
ER -
