Cargando…
Validity and Reliability of Screening Measures for Depression and Anxiety Disorders in Rheumatoid Arthritis
OBJECTIVE: To test the validity and reliability of screening instruments for depression and anxiety in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Participants with RA completed the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ‐2 or PHQ‐9), the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System depression short f...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7496677/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31199570 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acr.24011 |
Sumario: | OBJECTIVE: To test the validity and reliability of screening instruments for depression and anxiety in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Participants with RA completed the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ‐2 or PHQ‐9), the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System depression short form 8a and anxiety short form 8a, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale anxiety score (HADS‐A) and depression score (HADS‐D), the Overall Anxiety Severity and Impairment Scale, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 2‐ and 7‐item scales, and the Kessler‐6 scale. Clinical depression and anxiety disorders were confirmed using the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Axis I Disorders (SCID‐1) research version. We reported sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value using SCID‐1 diagnoses as the criterion standard. Test–retest reliability was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Of 150 participants, 11.3% had SCID‐1–diagnosed depression, 7.3% had SCID‐1–diagnosed generalized anxiety disorder, and 19.3% had any SCID‐1–diagnosed anxiety disorder. For depression, sensitivity ranged from HADS‐D (cut point 11; 35%) to PHQ‐2 (88%) and PHQ‐9 (87%). Specificity ranged from PHQ‐9 (77%) and PHQ‐2 (84%) to HADS‐D (cut point 11; 94%). Positive predictive value ranged from 30% to 43%. Negative predictive value ranged from 92% to 98%. For generalized anxiety disorder, sensitivity ranged from HADS‐A (cut point 11; 45%) to HADS‐A (cut point 8; 91%). Specificity ranged from 81% to 89% for all measures except the HADS‐A (cut point 8; 63%). Intraclass correlation coefficient estimates ranging from 0.69 to 0.88 confirmed good test–retest reliability. CONCLUSION: Depression screening instruments had good diagnostic performance; anxiety instruments were more variable. Identified depression and anxiety require clinical confirmation. |
---|