Patient-reported depression measures in cancer: a meta-review

Wakefield, Claire E.; Butow, Phyllis N.; Aaronson, Neil A.; Hack, Thomas F.; Hulbert-Williams, Nicholas J.; Jacobsen, Paul B.

The system will be going down for regular maintenance. Please save your work and logout.

dc.contributor.author	Wakefield, Claire E.	*
dc.contributor.author	Butow, Phyllis N.	*
dc.contributor.author	Aaronson, Neil A.	*
dc.contributor.author	Hack, Thomas F.	*
dc.contributor.author	Hulbert-Williams, Nicholas J.	*
dc.contributor.author	Jacobsen, Paul B.	*
dc.date.accessioned	2015-07-03T10:27:43Z	en
dc.date.available	2015-07-03T10:27:43Z	en
dc.date.issued	2015-07	en
dc.identifier.citation	Patient-reported depression measures in cancer: a meta-review 2015, 2 (7):635 The Lancet Psychiatry	en
dc.identifier.issn	2215-0366	en
dc.identifier.doi	10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00168-6	en
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10034/558838	en
dc.description.abstract	It is unclear which patient-reported depression measures perform best in oncology settings. We conducted a meta-review to integrate the findings of reviews of more than 50 depression measures used in oncology. We searched Medline, PsycINFO, EMBASE and grey literature from 1999-2014 to identify 19 reviews representing 372 primary studies. Eleven reviews were rated as being of high quality. The Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS) was most thoroughly evaluated, but was limited by cut-point variability. The HADS had moderate screening utility indices and was least recommended in advanced cancer/palliative care. The Beck Depression Inventory was more generalizable across cancer types/disease stages, with good indices for screening and case finding. The Centre of Epidemiology-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.
dc.language.iso	en	en
dc.publisher	Elsevier	en
dc.relation.url	http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2215036615001686	en
dc.rights	Archived with thanks to The Lancet Psychiatry	en
dc.subject	Depression	en
dc.subject	cancer	en
dc.subject	screening	en
dc.subject	oncology	en
dc.subject	responsiveness	en
dc.subject	meta-review	en
dc.subject	case-finding	en
dc.title	Patient-reported depression measures in cancer: a meta-review	en
dc.type	Article	en
dc.identifier.eissn	2215-0374
dc.contributor.department	University of Chester	en
dc.identifier.journal	The Lancet Psychiatry	en
rioxxterms.versionofrecord	https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00168-6
html.description.abstract	It is unclear which patient-reported depression measures perform best in oncology settings. We conducted a meta-review to integrate the findings of reviews of more than 50 depression measures used in oncology. We searched Medline, PsycINFO, EMBASE and grey literature from 1999-2014 to identify 19 reviews representing 372 primary studies. Eleven reviews were rated as being of high quality. The Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS) was most thoroughly evaluated, but was limited by cut-point variability. The HADS had moderate screening utility indices and was least recommended in advanced cancer/palliative care. The Beck Depression Inventory was more generalizable across cancer types/disease stages, with good indices for screening and case finding. The Centre of Epidemiology-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.