Cargando…
Measurement properties of depression questionnaires in patients with diabetes: a systematic review
PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review on measurement properties of questionnaires measuring depressive symptoms in adult patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature in MEDLINE, EMbase and PsycINFO was performed. Full text, original articles, published in...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5951879/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29396653 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1782-y |
_version_ | 1783323088311549952 |
---|---|
author | van Dijk, Susan E. M. Adriaanse, Marcel C. van der Zwaan, Lennart Bosmans, Judith E. van Marwijk, Harm W. J. van Tulder, Maurits W. Terwee, Caroline B. |
author_facet | van Dijk, Susan E. M. Adriaanse, Marcel C. van der Zwaan, Lennart Bosmans, Judith E. van Marwijk, Harm W. J. van Tulder, Maurits W. Terwee, Caroline B. |
author_sort | van Dijk, Susan E. M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review on measurement properties of questionnaires measuring depressive symptoms in adult patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature in MEDLINE, EMbase and PsycINFO was performed. Full text, original articles, published in any language up to October 2016 were included. Eligibility for inclusion was independently assessed by three reviewers who worked in pairs. Methodological quality of the studies was evaluated by two independent reviewers using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Quality of the questionnaires was rated per measurement property, based on the number and quality of the included studies and the reported results. RESULTS: Of 6286 unique hits, 21 studies met our criteria evaluating nine different questionnaires in multiple settings and languages. The methodological quality of the included studies was variable for the different measurement properties: 9/15 studies scored ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ on internal consistency, 2/5 on reliability, 0/1 on content validity, 10/10 on structural validity, 8/11 on hypothesis testing, 1/5 on cross-cultural validity, and 4/9 on criterion validity. For the CES-D, there was strong evidence for good internal consistency, structural validity, and construct validity; moderate evidence for good criterion validity; and limited evidence for good cross-cultural validity. The PHQ-9 and WHO-5 also performed well on several measurement properties. However, the evidence for structural validity of the PHQ-9 was inconclusive. The WHO-5 was less extensively researched and originally not developed to measure depression. CONCLUSION: Currently, the CES-D is best supported for measuring depressive symptoms in diabetes patients. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11136-018-1782-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5951879 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-59518792018-05-18 Measurement properties of depression questionnaires in patients with diabetes: a systematic review van Dijk, Susan E. M. Adriaanse, Marcel C. van der Zwaan, Lennart Bosmans, Judith E. van Marwijk, Harm W. J. van Tulder, Maurits W. Terwee, Caroline B. Qual Life Res Review PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review on measurement properties of questionnaires measuring depressive symptoms in adult patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature in MEDLINE, EMbase and PsycINFO was performed. Full text, original articles, published in any language up to October 2016 were included. Eligibility for inclusion was independently assessed by three reviewers who worked in pairs. Methodological quality of the studies was evaluated by two independent reviewers using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Quality of the questionnaires was rated per measurement property, based on the number and quality of the included studies and the reported results. RESULTS: Of 6286 unique hits, 21 studies met our criteria evaluating nine different questionnaires in multiple settings and languages. The methodological quality of the included studies was variable for the different measurement properties: 9/15 studies scored ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ on internal consistency, 2/5 on reliability, 0/1 on content validity, 10/10 on structural validity, 8/11 on hypothesis testing, 1/5 on cross-cultural validity, and 4/9 on criterion validity. For the CES-D, there was strong evidence for good internal consistency, structural validity, and construct validity; moderate evidence for good criterion validity; and limited evidence for good cross-cultural validity. The PHQ-9 and WHO-5 also performed well on several measurement properties. However, the evidence for structural validity of the PHQ-9 was inconclusive. The WHO-5 was less extensively researched and originally not developed to measure depression. CONCLUSION: Currently, the CES-D is best supported for measuring depressive symptoms in diabetes patients. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11136-018-1782-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2018-02-02 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC5951879/ /pubmed/29396653 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1782-y Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Review van Dijk, Susan E. M. Adriaanse, Marcel C. van der Zwaan, Lennart Bosmans, Judith E. van Marwijk, Harm W. J. van Tulder, Maurits W. Terwee, Caroline B. Measurement properties of depression questionnaires in patients with diabetes: a systematic review |
title | Measurement properties of depression questionnaires in patients with diabetes: a systematic review |
title_full | Measurement properties of depression questionnaires in patients with diabetes: a systematic review |
title_fullStr | Measurement properties of depression questionnaires in patients with diabetes: a systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Measurement properties of depression questionnaires in patients with diabetes: a systematic review |
title_short | Measurement properties of depression questionnaires in patients with diabetes: a systematic review |
title_sort | measurement properties of depression questionnaires in patients with diabetes: a systematic review |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5951879/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29396653 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1782-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vandijksusanem measurementpropertiesofdepressionquestionnairesinpatientswithdiabetesasystematicreview AT adriaansemarcelc measurementpropertiesofdepressionquestionnairesinpatientswithdiabetesasystematicreview AT vanderzwaanlennart measurementpropertiesofdepressionquestionnairesinpatientswithdiabetesasystematicreview AT bosmansjudithe measurementpropertiesofdepressionquestionnairesinpatientswithdiabetesasystematicreview AT vanmarwijkharmwj measurementpropertiesofdepressionquestionnairesinpatientswithdiabetesasystematicreview AT vantuldermauritsw measurementpropertiesofdepressionquestionnairesinpatientswithdiabetesasystematicreview AT terweecarolineb measurementpropertiesofdepressionquestionnairesinpatientswithdiabetesasystematicreview |