How to screen for depression and emotional problems in patients with diabetes: comparison of screening characteristics of depression questionnaires, measurement of diabetes-specific emotional problems and standard clinical assessment.
Hermanns N,Kulzer B,Krichbaum M,Kubiak T,Haak T
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS:We compared the screening performance of different measures of depression: the standard clinical assessment (SCA); the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI); the Center of Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D); and the Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) questionnaire, which assesses diabetes-specific distress. We also studied the ability of these measures to detect diabetes-related distress. MATERIALS AND METHODS:A total of 376 diabetic patients (37.2% type 1; 23.9% type 2 without insulin treatment, 38.8% type 2 with insulin) completed the BDI and CES-D; patients who screened positive participated in a diagnostic interview, the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). Also, all patients completed the PAID questionnaire. Results of the SCA that related to depression diagnosis were reviewed to correct for false negative screening results. RESULTS:The prevalence of clinical depression was 14.1%, with an additional 18.9% of patients receiving a diagnosis of subclinical depression. Sensitivity for clinical depression in SCA (56%) was moderate, whereas BDI, CES-D and the PAID questionnaire showed satisfactory sensitivity (87, 79 and 81%, respectively). For subclinical depression, the sensitivity of the PAID questionnaire (79%) was sufficient, whereas that of SCA (25%) was poor. All methods showed low sensitivity for the detection of diabetes-specific emotional problems (SCA 19%, CIDI 34%, BDI 60%, CES-D 49%). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION:The screening performance of SCA for clinical and subclinical depression was modest. Additional screening for depression using the PAID or another depression questionnaire seems reasonable. The ability of depression screening measures to identify diabetes-related distress is modest, suggesting that the PAID questionnaire could be useful when screening diabetic patients for both depression and emotional problems.
The Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale. An evaluation of its clinical utility.
Welch G W,Jacobson A M,Polonsky W H
OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the reliability and concurrent and discriminant validity of the Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) scale, a new measure of emotional functioning in diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS:A battery of questionnaires, including the PAID, was completed by 256 volunteer diabetic outpatients. In our analyses, we examined the PAID's internal structure and compared mean IDDM and NIDDM treatment group scores in regression analyses to explore its discriminant validity. We also evaluated concurrent validity from the correlations between the PAID and diabetes-specific measures of coping and health attitudes and HbA1c. RESULTS:Principal component analyses identified a large emotional adjustment factor, supporting the use of the total score. Significant sizable correlations were found between the PAID and a range of selected health attitudinal measures. There were significant differences (with small-to-moderate effect sizes) in PAID scores between IDDM and NIDDM patients and between IDDM and NIDDM insulin- and tablet-treated subgroups; no differences were found between NIDDM insulin- and tablet-treated subgroups. CONCLUSIONS:The study findings provided support for the construct validity of the PAID, including evidence for discriminant validity from its ability to detect differences between IDDM and NIDDM treatment groups expected to differ in the emotional impact of life with diabetes. Future studies should explore the PAID's performance in nonspecialist treatment settings as well as its responsiveness to clinical change.
Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: a clear and user-friendly guideline.
Sousa Valmi D,Rojjanasrirat Wilaiporn
Journal of evaluation in clinical practice
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES:The diversity of the population worldwide suggests a great need for cross-culturally validated research instruments or scales. Researchers and clinicians must have access to reliable and valid measures of concepts of interest in their own cultures and languages to conduct cross-cultural research and/or provide quality patient care. Although there are well-established methodological approaches for translating, adapting and validating instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research, a great variation in the use of these approaches continues to prevail in the health care literature. Therefore, the objectives of this scholarly paper were to review published recommendations of cross-cultural validation of instruments and scales, and to propose and present a clear and user-friendly guideline for the translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for cross-cultural health care research. METHODS:A review of highly recommended methodological approaches to translation, adaptation and cross-cultural validation of research instruments or scales was performed. Recommendations were summarized and incorporated into a seven-step guideline. Each one of the steps was described and key points were highlighted. Example of a project using the proposed steps of the guideline was fully described. CONCLUSIONS:Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for cross-cultural research is very time-consuming and requires careful planning and the adoption of rigorous methodological approaches to derive a reliable and valid measure of the concept of interest in the target population.