Psychiatric–Medical ComorbidityComparison of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale for detecting depression in women with breast or gynecologic cancer☆
Introduction
Depression is common in cancer patients. Reported prevalence rates vary, but a frequently cited estimate is that 20%–30% of cancer patients experience clinically significant depressive symptoms [1]. Depression is associated with deleterious effects across a range of outcomes including quality of life [2], [3], [4], health service utilization and health care costs [4], [5], and even survival [6], an association potentially mediated by poorer adherence to anticancer treatments [7]. Indeed, results of a large meta-analysis [8] showed a 39% higher mortality rate for cancer patients with minor or major depression.
Despite its importance, the ability of oncology professionals to reliably detect depression is undisputedly poor [9], [10], [11]. Obstacles to appropriate recognition of depression in cancer settings include lack of clinician time, poor communication skills, nihilism about depression and its treatment, and unfamiliarity with assessment methods [12]. Recorded discussions between patients and oncologists showed that discussions of emotional health featured in less than one third of consultations [13]. Low concordance between patients' self-report and oncologists' clinical impression was clearly demonstrated in a study of 143 oncologists and 2297 patients across 34 cancer centers in the United Kingdom in which, compared to results of a validated screening inventory, clinician sensitivity and specificity were 29% and 85%, respectively [9].
The need for easy, accurate methods of identifying depressed individuals who may benefit from referral to specialist psychological services is obvious. Consequently, a large number of screening tools have been developed and used in cancer populations. Cutoff scores designating clinically significant depressive symptoms are typically recommended for each instrument, yet there is lack of consensus regarding the validity, optimal thresholds and relative merits of these measures [14], [15], [16]. The validity of a screening instrument is the extent to which it actually measures the specified construct (i.e., depression). When screening for depression in cancer patients, an appropriate balance must be struck between detection sensitivity and specificity, or the screening program may be rendered ineffective. An insufficiently sensitive instrument may fail to identify a substantial number of depressed patients in need of psychological intervention, resulting in aversive outcomes as outlined above, but when instrument specificity is low, resources may be unnecessarily expended on patients who have mistakenly been referred for specialist psychological services. If patients are offered services they do not need, uptake of these referrals may be lower than expected and clinical resources wasted, potentially resulting in funding cuts to psycho-oncology services [12].
Two measures of particular interest for detecting depression are the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) [17] and the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) [18]. The HADS, which comprises two 7-item subscales for measuring anxiety and depression (HADS-D), respectively, is the most well-known and widely used screening measure, particularly in Europe. Developed for use in medically ill populations, the HADS-D purposively does not contain any somatic items to avoid confounding psychological symptoms with those of disease or treatment. The emphasis of the content is on anhedonia. While there is a wealth of evidence attesting to its psychometric properties [19], there is controversy regarding the HADS-D's discriminant validity relative to structured clinical assessment [20]. There is also lack of consensus as to the optimal cutoff score to detect major or minor depression among cancer patients [16], [21]. Reviews of the literature show that, in 2009, the most commonly used HADS-D threshold for determining caseness in the empirical literature was ≥ 8 [21]. This finding is poorly supported by validation studies that recommend cutoff scores ranging from ≥ 5 to ≥ 11 [20], [21].
By comparison, the 20-item CES-D, developed for use in nonpsychiatric community samples and more popular in North America, includes somatic items, and its content is biased towards experience of dysphoria. The CES-D has adequate psychometric properties [16] and has performed consistently well in depression screening studies and as an outcome in randomized trials of cancer patients [14], but its criterion validity in oncology settings has previously been evaluated in only two small studies of patients with mixed cancer diagnoses (n= 33) [22] and head and neck cancer (n= 60) [23].
In this paper, we describe a head-to-head comparison of the HADS-D and CES-D in detecting depression in patients with breast or gynecologic cancer using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview Version 5 (M.I.N.I.) [24], [25] as the referent diagnostic tool. The M.I.N.I. is a validated instrument used to diagnose minor and major depression according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) [26] and is similar to the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV [27] in operation and principle. The HADS, CES-D and M.I.N.I are described in greater detail below (see Methods). To our knowledge, only one previous study [23] has evaluated the relative operating characteristics of the HADS-D and CES-D in cancer patients. Given the differences between these instruments as outlined above and the not insignificant consideration that the CES-D is freely available while use of the HADS attracts substantial cost, this comparison is thought to be useful.
The aims of this study were to (a) investigate internal consistency and intercorrelations of the HADS-D and CES-D, (b) analyze the operating characteristics of the HADS and CES-D according to an independent criterion standard for depressive disorders, (c) determine if either screening instrument is superior for detecting DSM-IV depressive disorders and (d) determine optimum cutoff scores for discriminating between patients with and without depressive disorders.
Section snippets
Participants
The sample comprised women with newly diagnosed breast or gynecologic cancer attending two colocated major teaching hospitals in metropolitan Australia. Women younger than 18 years of age, with ductal carcinoma in situ, with previously diagnosed invasive carcinoma, or with cognitive or physical impairment affecting ability to consent or participate and those with poor English language comprehension were excluded from the study. Participants were recruited in person during outpatient visits
Study participation
As noted above, the 100 participants interviewed in this study were drawn from a larger study involving repeated administrations of the CES-D and HADS-D at 8-week intervals. Consequently, participants in the current series ranged from those at the early stages of the larger study (i.e., with multiple, future administrations still scheduled) to those whose telephonic interview corresponded with the completion of their project participation (i.e., with no future self-report administrations
Discussion
The main aim of this study was to determine the validity of two self-report depression screening instruments relative to a referent diagnostic standard in women with breast and gynecologic cancer. The substantial intercorrelations between the CES-D and HADS-D (r= 0.723) showed the extent to which the scales measure the same construct despite their differing emphases on dysphoria and anhedonia, respectively. Excellent internal consistencies for both instruments were demonstrated.
In its purest
Conclusions
Our results showed that the HADS-D and CES-D were statistically equivalent for detecting major and subthreshold depression in women with breast and gynecologic cancer. Despite comparable global accuracy though and depending on the purpose of screening, the CES-D may be more suitable for identification of major depression. To our knowledge, this study is one of only three CES-D validation studies in oncology patients and one of only two to compare the HADS-D and CES-D with a diagnostic referent
Acknowledgments
This study was supported in part by seed funding from the Western and Central Melbourne Integrated Cancer Service. The Centre for Women's Mental Health is supported by the Pratt Foundation. The authors wish to thank the Breast Care Nurses Robyn Cordner, Monique Baldacchino, Kerry Shanahan, Bronwyn Flanagan and Claire Noonan for their assistance in recruiting patients to the study. We also thank the participating patients for their support of this research.
References (39)
- et al.
Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and adjustment disorder in oncological, haematological, and palliative-care settings: a meta-analysis of 94 interview-based studies
Lancet Oncol
(2011) - et al.
Depression and cancer:mechanisms and disease progression
Biol Psychiatry
(2003) - et al.
Recognition of distress and psychiatric morbidity in cancer patients: a multi-method approach
Ann Oncol
(2004) - et al.
Meta-analysis of screening and case finding tools for depression in cancer: evidence based recommendations for clinical practice on behalf of the Depression in Cancer Care consensus group
J Affect Disord
(2012) - et al.
The validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. An updated literature review
J Psychosom Res
(2002) - et al.
The validity of the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I) according to the SCID-P and its reliability
Eur Psychiatry
(1997) - et al.
The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.). A short diagnostic structured interview: reliability and validity according to the CIDI
Eur Psychiatry
(1997) - et al.
Neuroticism: a vulnerability marker for depression: evidence from a famaily study
J Affect Disord
(1995) - et al.
A structured interview version of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale: evidence of reliability and versatility of administration
J Psychiatr Res
(1990) - et al.
Telephone assessment of depression severity
J Psychiatr Res
(1993)
Comparative validity of three screening questionnaires for DSM-IV depressive disorders and physicians' diagnoses
J Affect Disord
International experiences with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: a review of validation data and clinical results
J Psychosom Res
Anxiety, depression and quality of life of cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy: a cross-sectional study in a community hospital outpatient centre
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl)
Quality of life, anxiety, and depression in Turkish colorectal cancer patients
Support Care Cancer
Benefits of psychosocial oncology care: improved quality of life and medical cost offset
Health Qual Life Outcomes
Impact of a group psychosocial intervention on health care utilization by breast cancer patients
Cancer Pract
Beyond the psychotherapy and survival debate: the challenge of social disparity, depression and treatment adherence in psychosocial cancer care
Psychooncology
Depression as a predictor of disease progression and mortality in cancer patients: a meta-analysis
Cancer
Psychiatric morbidity and its recognition by doctors in patients with cancer
Br J Cancer
Cited by (27)
Performance of four diagnostic approaches to depression in adults with cancer
2018, General Hospital PsychiatryCitation Excerpt :While individual settings may take for granted that one approach has been determined to be optimal, the literature is mixed at best and clear guidelines on which approach to use do not exist. Many cancer settings and psycho-oncology researchers, for example, continue to opt for screening measures that exclude somatic symptoms despite equivocal findings (i.e., the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [5]; [11–13]), and the potential to “miss” patients with clinically significant depressive symptoms. The current study compares three of the most widely recognized approaches to depression assessment among medically ill patients, inclusive, exclusive, and substitutive, in a large sample of ambulatory cancer patients.
Predictors of depression and anxiety symptom trajectories in the 24 months following diagnosis of breast or gynaecologic cancer
2016, BreastCitation Excerpt :Recruitment occurred over 24 months beginning in August 2008. Recruitment and data collection procedures have been previously described [27–29]. In brief, women completed a self-report questionnaire comprising clinical and demographic data, measures of anxiety and depression symptoms, and a measure of neuroticism at recruitment.
Transitions in functional status of community dwelling older adults: Impact of physical performance, depression and cognition
2016, European Geriatric MedicineCitation Excerpt :Additionally, although mortality was considered as a decline in FS, SPPB, GS or worsening depression, limiting the analysis only to those survivors in the second wave (n = 485) yielded similar results to those obtained in the overall sample of 607 (see previous sensitivity analysis). Another limitation could be the fact that depression was measured with two different scales in 2008 and 2011, although the HADS-D and CES-D have been shown to have acceptable properties and are equivalent for detecting depression [31,32]. The ability of older persons to be functionally independent in the community is a public health issue, therefore knowledge and understanding of the factors responsible for functional limitations is important so that strategies to prevent or delay these limitations can be developed.
Depressive symptom trajectories in older breast cancer survivors: the Thinking and Living with Cancer Study
2023, Journal of Cancer SurvivorshipA Comparison of Two Scales to Determine Prevalence of Mood Disorders in Omani Patients Recently Diagnosed with Cancer
2022, Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
- ☆
Conflict of interest: The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.